Shepherd writeup

Shepherd-template date: 2/24/2012 

(1) What type of RFC: Proposed staandard

Why: This is an extension to TRILL specifications to allow a node which 
does not participate in TRILL'S RBridge IS-IS to encapsulate TRILL packets. 

This extension does not require an update to other drafts.
Why? This extension is allowed by RFC6325, section 4.6.2 so it does not update RFC6325 specification. 
The directory assistance context is described by RFC7067 and RFC8171, but 
the details of encapsulation were not included in those drafts so 
this specification does not require an update to this drafts.
[The careful splitting of the technology into clearly defined 
orthogonal pieces was by design.]

(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 describes how data network can benefit 
from non-Rbridge nodes peforming TRILL encapsulation with 
assistance from a directory servicve. 

RFC7067 and RFC8171 describe the framework nand methods for 
for TRILL edge Rbridges to get MAC&VLAN <---> Edge RBridge mappings 
from a directory service instead of flooding unknown destination MAC addresses
across a TRILL domain.  If it has the needed directory information, 
any node even an non-RBRidge node, can perform TRILL data packet encapsulation. 
This specification describes the benefits of and a scheme for 
non-RBridge nodes performing TRILL encapsulation. 

Working Group Summary

A complete directory service solution for TRILL was one of the 
key additions to the base specification needed by the industry. 
The TRILL working group designed the whole solution and its component
in discussions over 3-4  years.   This last group of specifications
depended on the approval of earlier specifications. 

Document Quality:

Huawei plans an implementation of the protocol. 


Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alia Atlas
RTG-DIR reviewer: Ben Niven 


IPR disclosed related to draft:

Resolution of Donald Estlake Comments on WG LC:

Resolution of Ben Niven's

Closing of WG LC

(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.

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

No.  We've walked through this technology for 4+ years.
We've argued this draft into the ground, and taken reviews. 

(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.


(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 additional information

(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.

IPR disclosures: 
Radia Perlman

Donald Eastlake

Linda Dunbar

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

IPR Disclosure mentioned on 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?   

Solid.  We took a careful design approach for creating a whole directory solution. 
Then, we broke the piece of the directory solution into component parts. 
Due to this careful structure (which I inherited as an incoming chair), 
the WG has then just focused on the minor details. 

The only place this careful design philosphy is a problem is 
when the IESG looks the debates on the specific drafts during WG LC.
You are not going to find these debates.  These occurred as
people brought forth individual drafts and work together toward a solution.  

Harmonious, thoughtful, and good designs - but frustrating to the AD review. 

(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.) 

no - see reasoning above. 

(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

The only ID nit is that the draft is January 18th.  It is this shepherd fault for
being overloaded. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

no special reviews. 

(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?


(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 drafts changed. 

(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).

(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 actions required. 

(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.

Nits performed.  Only thing that applies.