Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-13

draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-13.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?

   Standards Track.
   
   This is appropriate as the draft specifies a new data plane encapsulation
   format intended for overlay networds in NVO3 environments. It specifies
   the associated procedures as well as protocol numbers/registries. 

   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

Network virtualization involves the cooperation of devices with a
   wide variety of capabilities such as software and hardware tunnel
   endpoints, transit fabrics, and centralized control clusters.  As a
   result of their role in tying together different elements in the
   system, the requirements on tunnels are influenced by all of these
   components.  Flexibility is therefore the most important aspect of a
   tunnel protocol if it is to keep pace with the evolution of the
   system.  This document describes Geneve, an encapsulation protocol
   designed to recognize and accommodate these changing capabilities and
   needs.

Working Group Summary

   The document describes the Geneve encapsulation format for NVO3. NVO3
   has considered many different encapsulation formats, also including GUE 
   (draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-05 and draft-ietf-intarea-gue-07), and VXLAN-GPE
   (draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-06). A design team was chartered to analyse
   the available encapsulations and recommend one to go forward. The
   result of this choice was Geneve, and the design team's conclusions
   are documented in draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01. These conclusions were
   accepted by the working group. 

   There are two IPR declarations on the draft. These were made in 2014 prior to
   the draft being adopted as a working group draft, and the working group is 
   well aware of these. 
    

      
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 choice of Geneve by the NVO3 encapsulation design team and
   as confirmed by adoption by the working group. 
   
   The document has been the subject of early reviews by the Routing Area Directorate,
   Transport Area Review Team, and the Security Area Directorate. Although all
   of these review raise comments, they were all resolved with the agreement of
   the reviewers. 
   
   The document also received a significant number of comments from the editor of
   a number of security drafts in NVO3. Most of these were resolved, and all comments
   were addressed on the list or as changes to the document. The most significant
    outstanding comment related to the fact that Geneve recommends using DTLS and 
    IPSec for end to end security. This is not possible if transit devices that need to 
   inspect the packet header. This limitation is indicated in the draft. There was
   also some discussion around the precise wording of restrictions on the order
  of processing and dependencies between options in the Geneve header, but
  no consensus to change the current text in the draft.
   There was consensus to move forward with the draft.
   
   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 Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.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 v09 of the document. I had no significant technical 
  comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in
  version 10. 

(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 with significant
  discussion on the WG list. The document has 
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a period of a number of IETFs. 
  The document has been the subject of early reviews by the Routing Area Directorate,
   Transport Area Review Team, and the Security Area Directorate. Although all
   of these review raise comments, they were all resolved with the agreement of
   the reviewers. 

(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. These were made in 2014 prior to
   the draft being adopted as a working group draft, and the working group is 
   well aware of these. No concerns were raised during working group 
   adoption or last call.


  
(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. It received a 
    number of comments and significant discussion 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. 
    Prior to the WG last call, a call for interest was conducted which also demonstrated 
    consensus in the value of progressing the draft.
    

(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. There is one minor comment about and obsolete informational 
      reference to RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200). This is a case of an Internet 
      Standard document obsoleting a Proposed Standard and can be fixed during the 
      publication process. 


(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 or normative.

(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. 

(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).

   The document includes IANA actions. These are properly indicated.
   There is one requested allocation for a new UDP port (6081). This 
   is already recorded in the appropriate IANA registry.
   
   There is also a request for the allocation of a new Geneve option
   class registry. This is properly indicated in the draft.

(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 new registries requiring Expert Review.

(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.
Back