(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Proposed Standard as stated on the title page. This document
specifies the protocol for TRILL switches to implement active-
active services at the TRILL edge with edge group RBridges using
their own nickname as ingress.
(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:
TRILL active-active service provides end stations with flow level
load balance and resilience against link failures at the edge of
TRILL campuses as described in RFC 7379.
This draft specifies a method by which member RBridges in an
active-active edge RBridge group use their own nicknames as the
ingress RBridge nickname to encapsulate frames from attached end
systems. Thus, remote edge RBridges are required to keep multiple
point of attachment for one MAC address within a Data Label.
Working Group Summary:
Although early discussion in the TRILL WG favored a pseudo-node
nickname approach similar to that in draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-
nickname, later analysis resulting in the alternatives described in
the Introduction of this document. Two alternatives, which can be
deployed simultaneously in a TRILL campus, are being advanced by
the WG, the other using a pseudo-nickname in draft-ietf-trill-
There was good WG support for this draft in WG LC (2/11-2/25)
This document is of high quality.
Document Shepherd: Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas
WG chairs: Susan Hares, Jon Hudson
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.
The Shepherd has reviewed this document at various stages and
provided feedback. The most recent and formal Shepherd review is
(The draft has been also updated based on AD review which is here:
(The RTG-Directorate Reviewer: Michael Richardson- review is below:
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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?
(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?
No special 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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures.
(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?
There is strong consensus for this draft among the interested
members of the WG. It represents an approach developed by a design
team coordinated by Radia Perlman.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
(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 nits although the nits checker warns about a possible bad
example IPv4 address: "188.8.131.52". This is actually a Section number
from RFC 6325.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or 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?
There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis for
which RFC publication has been requested.
(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.
There are no downward normative references.
(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?
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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
The IANA Considerations were carefully compared with the text. It
requests appropriate assignments from existing registries and
creates one new registry for Extended RBridge Capability bits. The
initial contents is well specified along with allocation procedure
and name. This new registry is Expert Review and experts with a
strong background in TRILL should be appointed.
(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.
This document creates an "Extended RBridge Capabilities Registry"
with assignment by Expert Review. Strong TRILL technical experts
should be selected for the IANA Experts.
(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.
No such reviews required.