(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?
This is an Informational document, as indicated in the title page
headers, that discusses the TRILL active-active edge and problems
that may need to be overcome. It contains no protocol
specifications.
(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:
The TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol
provides support for flow level multi-pathing with rapid failover
for both unicast and multi-destination traffic in networks with
arbitrary topology. Active-active at the TRILL edge is the
extension of these characteristics to end stations that are
multiply connected to a TRILL campus. This informational document
discusses the high level problems and goals when providing
active-active connection at the TRILL edge.
Working Group Summary:
There was broad working group consensus that this document
addresses and in favor of its publication as an Informational RFC.
Document Quality:
This document is of good quality. A significant number of vendors
indicated that the active-active problem described in this document
is of high importance to their customers and they plan to implement
a solution.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.
Both before an after declaration of WG consensus, the Shepherd
carfully reveiwed the document and made a number of minor
suggestions that have been incorporated.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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?
As an already well reviewed informational document in the TRILL
area, I do not feel that any such special extra review is needed.
(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 or issues.
(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.
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed against this draft.
(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 a broad consensus in the WG that active-active is, along
with OAM, one of the two most urgent and important areas for the WG
to address and there is a broad consensus, based on both meetings
and the mailing list, that this document is a reasonable
presentation of the problem and goals for a solution.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
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).
None.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
No such formal review required.
(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?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)?
No, although there is one normative reference to a non-IETF standard
(ISO/IEC 10589:2002).
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?
No.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
with the body of the document.
This document requires 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.
This document creates no new IANA registries.
(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 of this document is written in any such formal language.