Skip to main content

An Architecture for Data-Center Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)
draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-12-20
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-11-12
08 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2016-11-08
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-10-10
Jasmine Magallanes Posted related IPR disclosure: Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd's Statement about IPR related to draft-dunbar-nvo3-nva-mapping-distribution and draft-ietf-nvo3-arch
2016-10-04
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-09-21
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2016-09-21
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-09-21
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-09-21
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-09-21
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-09-21
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-09-21
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-09-21
08 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2016-09-20
08 Alia Atlas Ready to approve with no notes needed.
2016-09-20
08 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-09-20
08 David Black IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-09-20
08 David Black New version approved
2016-09-20
08 David Black New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-08.txt
2016-09-20
08 David Black
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "David L. Black" , "Jon Hudson" , "Lawrence Kreeger" , "Marc Lasserre" , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, "Dr. Thomas …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "David L. Black" , "Jon Hudson" , "Lawrence Kreeger" , "Marc Lasserre" , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, "Dr. Thomas Narten"
2016-09-20
08 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-09-15
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-09-15
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-09-15
07 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2016-09-15
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I agree with Stephen's last comment and would like to see text added to address that.
2016-09-15
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-09-15
07 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I found a small number of nits that I couldn't error-correct while reading, but I'm especially interested in Suresh's Discuss on TTL decrementing. …
[Ballot comment]
I found a small number of nits that I couldn't error-correct while reading, but I'm especially interested in Suresh's Discuss on TTL decrementing.

I couldn't parse

  L3 VN to Legacy L2:  This type of gateway forwards packets on between
        L3 VNs and legacy L2 networks such as VLANs or L2 VPNs.  The
        MAC address in any frames forwarded between the legacy L2
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        network would be the MAC address of the gateway.
        ^^^^^^^
       
I could guess, but something is borked, and I'm not sure what is meant.

I'm having the same problem with

  L3 VN to L2 VN:  This type of gateway forwards packets on between L3
        VNs and L2 VNs.  The MAC address in any frames forwarded
        between the L2 VN would be the MAC address of the gateway.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       
further down.

I know what "hard" and "soft" errors are in my world, but I'm not sure what's meant here.

  o  Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X
      (soft error).

  o  Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X
      (hard error).
     
Are these clearly understood terms of art in NV03? If not, could you provide some parenthetical "i.e.", as you do for other items in the same list, or some reference if an appropriate reference exists?

Is

  o  Allow different protocols and architectures to be used to for
                                                            ^^ ^^^
      intra- vs. inter-NVA communication. 
     
just a typo, or is there something missing between "to" and "for"?
2016-09-15
07 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-09-15
07 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- (This comment is just a generic remark, offered in the hope
that future IPR declarations might be more tightly targeted,
so there's …
[Ballot comment]

- (This comment is just a generic remark, offered in the hope
that future IPR declarations might be more tightly targeted,
so there's no need to respond to it.) It's not clear to me
how an architecture with 2 RAND-with-fee IPR declarations
amounts to a win here.  Well, unless the IPR is rubbish maybe
- I did take a look at those and do have an opinion, but I'll
leave you to guess what that is:-) But the IPR declarations
seem like they were timely, and the last call did mention
them, so I guess it is what it is.  Generally though, I think
it'd be way better if IPR declarations were attached to
specific protocol documents that the IPR holders consider
relevant and not to architecture documents or similar. I can
understand that making an IPR declaration on a document like
this might be seen as getting the declaration out earlier (a
good thing), but one has to wonder how anything here
represents a credible invention. If that's the case I'd note
that IPR declarations can be made that don't point at an
Internet-draft which might be a better way to provide earlier
notification to a WG. And declarations can be updated later
to be associated with specific drafts if/when that's needed.

- Generally this was pretty well written, thanks.

- abstract/intro: "work with other components with no changes
to other components" isn't great, suggest re-wording.

- 4.2: ToR could do with an expansion on 1st use

- 4.2.1: TS - I assume that's "tenant system" (from 7635) but
you should say as it's used a good bit (and 7635 also defines
"tenant separation" making TS potentially ambiguous). Mostly,
uses of TS seem clear from context, but I think it'd be good
to fix this and to check over where TS is used in this draft
as there could be some subtlety there, e.g.  whether or not a
TSI is part of a TS or not (and is somehow architecturally
"beside" a TS) could affect some later protocol work.

- section 16: I think it might be worth noting here that
meta-data and operational data could be unexpectedly
sensitive, for example performance statistics could be used
to infer what's being done in a VM or VN. So in addition to
encrypting data in transit or storage, one might also want to
consider minimising the types of data that NVEs/NVAs collect.
That could have an impact on protocols defined later so may
well be worth noting here too. If you do add text on that you
may also want to recognise the tension between such data
minimisation and the operational need to detect misbehaviours
or errors happening within VNs.
2016-09-15
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-09-14
07 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot discuss]
* Section 3.1.2 : I am trying to understand why a minimum TTL decrement is expected here. I think the mandated behavior is …
[Ballot discuss]
* Section 3.1.2 : I am trying to understand why a minimum TTL decrement is expected here. I think the mandated behavior is incorrect and needs to be fixed.

  For L3 service, Tenant Systems should expect the IPv4 TTL (Time to
  Live) or IPv6 Hop Limit in the packets they send to be decremented by
  at least 1.

e.g. Consider two IPv6 end systems that are connected using an L3 service. If one of them is the router and another is a host on the same network a significant part of the Neighbor Discovery functions will stop working if the hop limit is decremented (from 255 to 254).
2016-09-14
07 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
* For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG …
[Ballot comment]
* For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG discussed this?
2016-09-14
07 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-09-14
07 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Two tiny comments:
- Call section 4.5 "Virtual Access Point (VAP)" instead of only "VAP"
-  I don't really understand this: "As is …
[Ballot comment]
Two tiny comments:
- Call section 4.5 "Virtual Access Point (VAP)" instead of only "VAP"
-  I don't really understand this: "As is the case for L2VPN, there is a client/server relationship
  between the overlay and underlay networks..." How do the terms client and server help me here?

More general:
I was hoping to find a discussion on how existing protocols would be applicable to the three needed control protocols. Also do these three protocols need to be three different protocols or could all three cases potentially be covered by the same protocol (because the protocol mechanisms are the same and maybe even sometimes the same information needs to be exchanged)?
2016-09-14
07 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-09-14
07 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-09-13
07 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-09-13
07 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-09-13
07 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-09-13
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-09-12
07 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-09-12
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-09-12
07 Alia Atlas Ballot has been issued
2016-09-12
07 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-09-12
07 Alia Atlas Created "Approve" ballot
2016-09-12
07 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was changed
2016-08-26
07 Matthew Bocci
draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the …
draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Informational.
 
  This is appropriate as the draft describes an architecture for overlay networks
  in data centres. It does not specify new protocols, protocol numbers/registries,
  or protocol rules. Rather, it provides a descriptive architecture showing how
  functional elements and protocols relate, their relative roles, and where they fit
  in a multi-tenant data center.

  The intended status is properly indicated.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

    This document presents a high-level architecture for building data
  center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks. The
  architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major components
  of an overall system.

Working Group Summary

  The document is one of the base documents chartered for the NVO3 working group.
  The document was originally created by a design team to help define the protocol
  architecture that
  the NVO3 working group would be working on, and to provide guidelines to define
  the role of various protocols in a multi-tenant data center. NVO3 is chartered to
  address a multi-tenant data centre with a centralised control plane architecture,
  and one role of this document is to define what that architecture is so the
  working group could progress with developing or adopting the appropriate protocols
  for each of the functional elements.

  This document was subject to a second working group last call (on changes only in version 7)
  since there were significant additions to the text based on AD review. There were
no concerns raised about the revised text during the second working group last call.

  There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538).

     
Document Quality
   
  I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents
  WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a
  number of years.

  The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need
  review.

   
Personnel

  The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com).
  The responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com).

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd reviewed v05 of the document. I had no significant technical
  comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in
  version 06.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a
  period of a number of IETFs. It received a number of comments during WG last call.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No further review required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No specific concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that
  they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance
  with BCP 78 and 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Neither of these
  resulted in any concerns being raised or further discussion in the working group.


 
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. The
    initial draft was the result of work by a design team that was reported on
    over a number of IETFs. It has been
    discussed over a long period , both in face to face IETF meetings
    and on the list. It received a number of comments in WG last call that
    were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and
    comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward.
   

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  None indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

      ID-Nits passes.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  There are no relevant formal review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

  No. All references are informative.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  There are no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  There are no IANA actions.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.
2016-08-26
07 Matthew Bocci
draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the …
draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Informational.
 
  This is appropriate as the draft describes an architecture for overlay networks
  in data centres. It does not specify new protocols, protocol numbers/registries,
  or protocol rules. Rather, it provides a descriptive architecture showing how
  functional elements and protocols relate, their relative roles, and where they fit
  in a multi-tenant data center.

  The intended status is properly indicated.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

    This document presents a high-level architecture for building data
  center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks. The
  architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major components
  of an overall system.

Working Group Summary

  The document is one of the base documents chartered for the NVO3 working group.
  The document was originally created by a design team to help define the protocol
  architecture that
  the NVO3 working group would be working on, and to provide guidelines to define
  the role of various protocols in a multi-tenant data center. NVO3 is chartered to
  address a multi-tenant data centre with a centralised control plane architecture,
  and one role of this document is to define what that architecture is so the
  working group could progress with developing or adopting the appropriate protocols
  for each of the functional elements.

  This document was subject to a second working group last call (on changes only in version 7)
  since there were significant additions to the text based on AD feedback. There were no concerns raised
about the revised text during the second working group last call.

  There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538).

     
Document Quality
   
  I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents
  WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a
  number of years.

  The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need
  review.

   
Personnel

  The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com).
  The responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com).

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd reviewed v05 of the document. I had no significant technical
  comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in
  version 06.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a
  period of a number of IETFs. It received a number of comments during WG last call.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No further review required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No specific concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that
  they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance
  with BCP 78 and 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Neither of these
  resulted in any concerns being raised or further discussion in the working group.


 
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. The
    initial draft was the result of work by a design team that was reported on
    over a number of IETFs. It has been
    discussed over a long period , both in face to face IETF meetings
    and on the list. It received a number of comments in WG last call that
    were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and
    comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward.
   

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  None indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

      ID-Nits passes.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  There are no relevant formal review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

  No. All references are informative.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  There are no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  There are no IANA actions.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.
2016-08-23
07 Alia Atlas Telechat date has been changed to 2016-09-15 from 2016-09-01
2016-08-16
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar.
2016-08-16
07 Alia Atlas Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-09-01
2016-08-16
07 David Black IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-08-16
07 David Black New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07.txt
2016-08-12
06 Takeshi Takahashi Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi.
2016-08-12
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-08-12
06 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-08-12
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-08-04
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi
2016-08-04
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi
2016-08-01
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2016-08-01
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2016-08-01
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2016-08-01
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2016-07-29
06 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-07-29
06 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, "Matthew Bocci" , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, "Matthew Bocci" , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Network Virtualization Overlays
WG (nvo3) to consider the following document:
- 'An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays
(NVO3)'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document presents a high-level overview architecture for
  building data center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks.
  The architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major
  components of an overall system.  An important goal is to divide the
  space into individual smaller components that can be implemented
  independently and with clear interfaces and interactions with other
  components.  It should be possible to build and implement individual
  components in isolation and have them work with other components with
  no changes to other components.  That way implementers have
  flexibility in implementing individual components and can optimize
  and innovate within their respective components without requiring
  changes to other components.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2320/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2538/





2016-07-29
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-07-29
06 Alia Atlas Last call was requested
2016-07-29
06 Alia Atlas Last call announcement was generated
2016-07-29
06 Alia Atlas Ballot approval text was generated
2016-07-29
06 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was generated
2016-07-29
06 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-07-29
06 Alia Atlas Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-07-29
06 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci
draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-06.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the …
draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-06.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Informational.
 
  This is appropriate as the draft describes an architecture for overlay networks
  in data centres. It does not specify new protocols, protocol numbers/registries,
  or protocol rules. Rather, it provides a descriptive architecture showing how
  functional elements and protocols relate, their relative roles, and where they fit
  in a multi-tenant data center.

  The intended status is properly indicated.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

    This document presents a high-level architecture for building data
  center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks. The
  architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major components
  of an overall system.

Working Group Summary

  The document is one of the base documents chartered for the NVO3 working group.
  The document was originally created by a design team to help define the protocol
  architecture that
  the NVO3 working group would be working on, and to provide guidelines to define
  the role of various protocols in a multi-tenant data center. NVO3 is chartered to
  address a multi-tenant data centre with a centralised control plane architecture,
  and one role of this document is to define what that architecture is so the
  working group could progress with developing or adopting the appropriate protocols
  for each of the functional elements.

  There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538).

     
Document Quality
   
  I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents
  WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a
  number of years.

  The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need
  review.

   
Personnel

  The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com).
  The responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com).

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd reviewed v05 of the document. I had no significant technical
  comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in
  version 06.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a
  period of a number of IETFs. It received a number of comments during WG last call.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No further review required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No specific concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that
  they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance
  with BCP 78 and 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Neither of these
  resulted in any concerns being raised or further discussion in the working group.


 
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. The
    initial draft was the result of work by a design team that was reported on
    over a number of IETFs. It has been
    discussed over a long period , both in face to face IETF meetings
    and on the list. It received a number of comments in WG last call that
    were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and
    comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward.
   

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  None indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

      ID-Nits passes.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  There are no relevant formal review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

  No. All references are informative.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  There are no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  There are no IANA actions.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci Tags Waiting for Referencing Document, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2016-04-22
06 Matthew Bocci Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com> from "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
2016-04-22
05 Matthew Bocci Changed document writeup
2016-04-21
06 Larry Kreeger New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt
2016-03-21
05 Larry Kreeger New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-05.txt
2015-11-25
04 Matthew Bocci Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
2015-11-25
04 Matthew Bocci Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci
2015-10-19
04 Thomas Narten New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-04.txt
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from "Benson Schliesser"  to (None)
2015-03-09
03 Larry Kreeger New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-03.txt
2015-02-17
Naveen Khan Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nvo3-arch
2014-10-27
02 Thomas Narten New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-02.txt
2014-10-14
01 Benson Schliesser Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2014-10-14
01 Benson Schliesser Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2014-10-14
01 Benson Schliesser Tag Waiting for Referencing Document set.
2014-10-14
01 Benson Schliesser Notification list changed to "Benson Schliesser" <bensons@queuefull.net>
2014-10-14
01 Benson Schliesser Document shepherd changed to Benson Schliesser
2014-02-18
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Microsoft Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01
2014-02-14
01 Thomas Narten New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt
2013-12-17
00 Thomas Narten New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-00.txt