Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-02

(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 indicated on the title page, correctly.


(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:
>In NVO3 networks, Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) devices sit at the edge of the underlay network and provide Layer-2 and Layer-3 connectivity among Tenant Systems (TSes) of the same tenant. The NVEs need to build and maintain mapping tables so that they can deliver encapsulated packets to their intended destination NVE(s). While there are different options to create and disseminate the mapping table entries, NVEs may exchange that information directly among themselves via a control-plane protocol, such as EVPN. EVPN provides an efficient, flexible and unified control-plane option that can be used for Layer-2 and Layer-3 Virtual Network (VN) service connectivity. This document describes the applicability of EVPN to NVO3 networks and how EVPN solves the challenges in those networks.


Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 
> This document was extensively discussed within NVo3. Held a round table workshop like session during IETF 97 to discuss Control plane requirements and solutions. Gathered all the requirements and decided to have EVPN as one of the control plane solutions for NVo3. Draft was presented in subsequent WG sessions of IETF and many comments were provided by various members as part of WG adoption and WG LC.All of the comments were clearly answered and the draft got updated appropriately. There were no controversial or pending issues remaining.


Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? 


> EVPN protocol was implemented by almost all of the routing vendors. This is a well known protocol and is being used to deploy VXLAN protocol. Vendors have indicated that GENEVE protocol also used EVPN as control protocol in various deployments.. 


Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 
> Document Shepherd: Sam Aldrin
   AD> Martin Vigoureux


(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 is well written. EVPN is widely deployed protocol. Employing this protocol for GENEVE requires no protocol work. This document captures how to use the existing protocol in deploying control plane for NVo3. All of the requirements were captured and detailed in the document. Various deployment aspects were discussed and addressed as part of the deployment scenarios, within the document. All of the comments, during the WG session and over the emails were addressed. 


This document is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 
> There are no concerns.


(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. 
> This document does not introduce any protocol changes or require any new security considerations.


(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. 
> None.
(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?
> All the authors have disclosed that there are no IPRs associated with this document, which were not already disclosed with EVPN protocol [RFC7432].


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 
> None


(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? 
> This draft was presented in various WG sessions. Consensus was very strong. There were no technical objections raised regarding this draft. When polled, both at the WG session and over the mailing list, the consensus was strong with no objections.


(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.


(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. 
> No issues found.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 
> None


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 
> Yes. All references were clearly identified.


(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? 
> None.
(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. 
> None.


(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. 
> None.


(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 8126). 
> No new IANA registrations requested.
 
(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. 
> None.


(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.
> None.
Back