Shepherd writeup

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed Standard 

(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,
   by default, learns end station addresses from observing the data
   plane.  In particular, it learns local MAC addresses and edge
   switch port of attachment from the receipt of local data frames and
   learns remote MAC addresses and edge switch of attachment from the
   decapsulation of remotely sourced TRILL Data packets.

   This document specifies a message by which a TRILL switch can
   explicitly request other TRILL switches to flush certain MAC
   reachability learned through the decapsulation of TRILL Data
   packets.  This is a supplement to the TRILL automatic address
   forgetting and can assist in achieving more rapid convergence in
   case of topology or configuration change.

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?

No.  This draft is part of a package of directory/ARP services
for TRILL.  Flushing unused MAC learned MAC addresses is key to
keeping the bridge-router function scalable. A late IPR disclosure
required a second WG Last Call.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 
   Huawei has implemented a subset of this protocol.

Reviews: RTG-DIR and shepherd did reviews in 2016-2017. 


  Document Shepherd: Susan Hares  
  RTG-DIR reviewer: Henning Rogge
  Responsible AD: Alia Atlas 

(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.

Adoption call (4/11/2016 to 4/25/2016)

Adoption (4/11/2016 to 4/25/2106) notice

RTG-DIR: Henning Rogge (9/16/2016)
Response to review:  (12/9/2016)  Donald Eastlake
Discussion  by Henning Rogge: and approval:

WG LC (1/13 -1/27/2017)

Shepherd's first review (1/14/2017)
Response to Shepherd's review (
Released document:

1st WG LC (no consensus )

2nd WG LC (10/2 to 10/16)

Passed WG LC :

IPR call for address flush
Message regarding WG consensus to forward to the IESG

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. There has been careful review as documented above.

(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 - the concept of address flush is utlized in MPLS and other 
layer 2.5 protocol suites. 

(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 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. If not, explain why.

Yes. After initial author confirmations, an IPR disclosure was filed
and new confirmations were requested from the authors. Those
confirmations have been posted as follows:
   Weiguo Hao
   Donald Eastlake
   Yizhou Li
   Mohammed Umair

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

One IPR disclosure was filed late in the process. As a result, a new
WG Last Call was issued which demonstrated there was still a WG
consensus in favor of publishing the draft.
   IPR call for address flush
Closing of IPR 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?   

Solid. Most of the discussion occurred at meetings where this draft
was presented. There is a clear consensus on the mailing list with no

(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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

No nits. 

(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?

All references are RFCs. 

(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. 


(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.

No. This draft proposes new functionality. 

(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).

 This draft requests:

1) Address Flush RBridge Channel Protocol number from the range of
   RBridge Channel protocols allocated by Standards Action [RFC7178],

2) A TRILL Address Flush TLV Types registry on the TRILL Parameters
   web page indented after the RBridge Channel Protocols registry.
   The Table in section 2.2 on page 9
   (draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-04.txt) has the initial values.
   This registry is IETF Review.

(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.

IETF-Expert Review for TRILL Address Flush TLV Types registry.

(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 needed.