(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?
The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'.
The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header.
This document describes the describes a standard SPF backoff algorithm with
common configurable parameters to be implemented by all the nodes in a network
to mitigates the microloops problem.
(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 describes a route computation back-off algorithm (not SPF
computation algorithm itself!) to most widely used IGPs (OSPF/ISIS). Because
lack of standard algorithm in this area various implementations choose to
implement different back-off procedures today and this is one of the main
contributors to the micro-loops seen today during network re-convergence. This
document also defines the key configurable parameters for the standard
algorithm defined here, so that same set of values can be provisioned in all
nodes in a particular deployment. Other sources of micro loops are hinted in
section 8 with some references.
Working Group Summary
This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG.
The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG.
All major comments have been addressed. The draft is ready for publication.
Version 07 addresses my comments.
Document Quality
The draft went through routing directorate review and comments were taken care.
Proposed algorithm has been prototyped/implemented by 3
vendors-os/implementations
– JunOS prototype
– Quagga (Free Range Routing)
– RtBrick
Personnel
Uma Chunduri is the Document Shepherd.
Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.
(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 draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd and all comments were
addressed in published 07 version.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
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.
N/A
(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.
N/A
(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.
Yes. Every author has confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes. The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR
at every step of the process. There haven't been any concerns raised on the
list.
(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?
The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize 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.) No.
(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. There are
still some editorial comments that need to be addressed. From idnits:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (October 22, 2017) is 47 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of
draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-18
== Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
draft-ietf-ospf-yang-08
== Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-04
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Parameters defined in this document should be configured from respective IGP
yang model. This has been clearly described in Section 6 "Parameters" - of the
document. ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg, ietf-ospf-yang informative refernces have
been added to that effect. No need for such formal review.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
(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 (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. The state of other documents remains unchanged.
(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).
N/A
(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. N/A
(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. N/A