Shepherd writeup



(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 as indicated on the title page. This is appropriate
  because it standardized a method of handling multi-destination
  traffic from active-active end stations.

(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 draft uses centralized replication as a solution to reverse
  path forwarding check failure when multi-destination traffic is
  ingressed from an active-active endstation using a pseudo-nickname
  as the ingress nickname.

Working Group Summary

  Nothing particularly noteworthy in the WG process.

Document Quality

  The document is of good quality. Huawei plans to implement this


  Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
  Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.

  Shephard's review is here:
  These comments have been resolved.

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

  No. In addition to Shepherd and directorate reviews, a thorough AD
  review was done as documented here
  and the draft has been modified accordingly.

(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.

  This document has had a Routing Directorate review. See

(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.

  Author's assurances:
  Yizhou Li

  Weiquo Hao

  Muhammad Durrani

  Sujay Gupta

  Andrew Qu

(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 filed with IETF.

(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 good consensus for this document.

(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 thorough.

  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 such formal review required. It has undergone routing directorate

(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?


(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.

  Tbis draft does not change the status of any other 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 5226).

  The IANA Considerations section is correct and complete. The two
  actions required are the assignment of two bit in a currently
  existing registry.

(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.

  No IANA registries created.

(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 validity reviews required.