Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-trill-rfc6327bis

(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?

   Proposed Standard as indicated in the title page header. The draft
   obsoletes RFC 6327 and updates RFC 6325, both of which are Proposed
   Standards.

(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 document specifies the establishment, conditions for
   reporting, and termination of IS-IS adjacency between TRILL
   switches. It also concerns four other link-local aspects of TRILL:
   Designated RBridge (DRB) selection, MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit)
   testing, pseudonode creation, and BFD (Bi-directional Forwarding
   Detection) session bootstrapping. State diagrams are included where
   appropriate. It replaces RFC 6327 and the changes from that RFC are
   listed in Appendix A. Although there are some changes in actions
   and state transition criteria, there are no changes in the
   structure of the state diagrams themselves from RFC 6327.

Working Group Summary:

   This document replaces RFC 6327, mostly upgrading it to take into
   account other approved documents. As such, there was less new
   material in the draft than most and somewhat less discussion of the
   draft in the TRILL WG.

Document Quality:

   This document is an update of RFC 6327, which RFC was very
   carefully reviewed by a number of persons including Mike Shand. One
   of the current co-authors, Howard Yang, is implementing portions of
   this draft. The document is of high quality.

Personnel:

   Document Shepherd: Jon Hudson
   Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon

(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.

   The document was carefully reviewed by the Shepherd resulting in
   the editorial changes between versions -01 and -02.

(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? If so, describe the review that
took place.

   RFC 6327, which this replaces, was reviewed by the Routing
   Directorate. 

(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 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. If not, explain why?

   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.

(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 solid consensus for this document. There were fewer
   comments than usual, which is to be expected for a document that is
   an update to an existing RFC with the updates mostly based on
   other approved documents.

(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.

(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). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

   None.

(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 criteria were required.

   Since the topic of the document, adjacency, is related to IS-IS,
   notice of the draft adoption by the TRILL WG, and notice of the
   TRILL WG LC were forwarded to the ISIS WG mailing list as well as
   being posted to the TRILL WG mailing list.

(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? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

   The only normative reference that is not already issued as an RFC
   or in the RFC editor's queue is draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis which
   has passed WG LC in the ISIS WG.

(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.

   There are no downward references but there is a reference to the
   ISO/IEC-10589 standard that the nits checker flags as a possible
   down reference.

(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 draft obsoletes RFC 6327 as listed in the title page header. 

(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 draft 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 draft 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.

   No formal language is used in this draft, although it does have two
   state diagrams.
Back