Shepherd writeup

PROTO for draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd-05

 (1) Type of RFC: Standards track as indicated on the title page. This document extends
and updates Draft Standard 7175 on TRILL support of BFD.

 (2) Document Announcement: 
  Technical Summary:

Point to multipoint (P2MP) BFD is designed to verify multipoint
connectivity.  This document specifies the support of P2MP BFD in
TRILL.  Similar to TRILL point-to-point BFD, BFD Control packets in
TRILL P2MP BFD are transmitted using RBridge Channel message.

  Working Group Summary:

  WG has discussed this technology along with other TRILL extensions for the 
  last 3 years.  Trade-offs were discussed at IETF meetings and on the mail list. 
  Final decision on trade-off received good WG consnesus. 

  Document Quality:
  No implementations of the protocol exist. 
  Huawei may implement this draft in the future, but 
  this depends on customer needs in various deployments 
  (data centers, campus networks, and others) 

     Document Shepherd: Sue Hares
     Responsible Area Director: 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.

RTG-DIR review 
 RTG-DIR REview - few nits need to be addressed. 

See also review comments by Donald Eastlake at
that were resolved in version -05
and RTG review by Carlos Pignataro at
resolved here

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

  The draft has recevied good review in the meetings, in discussion with authors, 
  and on the list.   The chair sends out specific questions with each TRILL WG last call. 
  TRILL participant commenton these questions.

  The security considerations section indicates that a "future document will 
  provide for group keying".  This document is draft-ietf-trill-group-keying-00.txt. 
  Since the TRILL progressing toward a hiatus and this future document 
  may not pass WG LC, this statement has been left as is.   An RFC editor note 
 can link these two documents together if they are both approved, or 
 the authors indicated they would be glad to modify the document. 

 (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.
    Normal reviews, plus review by the BFD group is useful.  

 (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. This document has gone through
   several reviews.  It is part of the extension to the TRILL
   extensions for directory  service and local link functions.

 (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, three authors:
    Prasad Govindan:
    Mingui Zhang:
    Santosh Pallagatti:

 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
     If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
     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 clear WG consensus for this draft. 
  This document has cycled in the working group as the authors 
  and chair refined the 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

No such 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

There are references to two BFD WG drafts and one TRILL draft as
listed below. These are expected to be advanced soon.
(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.

No downward 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? 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.

This document updates RFC 7177 as specified in Section 3 and updates
RFC 7175 as specified in Section 4.

(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 document only requires the allocation of a single code point, a
new RBridge Channel Protocol number, which is properly provided for in
the IANA Considerations Section.

(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

No new 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 automatic checks required.