write-up format: refer to RFC 4858 for template, version 02/24/2012.
(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?
type: Protocol standard
Why: Obsoletes RFC6439 on TRILL appointed forwarders.
on title page: yes
(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:
TRILL supports multi-access LAN (Local Area Network) links where a
single link can have multiple end stations and TRILL switches
attached. Where multiple TRILL switches are attached to a link,
native traffic to and from end stations on that link is handled by a
subset of those TRILL switches called "Appointed Forwarders", with
the intent that native traffic in each VLAN be handled by at most one
TRILL switch. This document clarifies and updates the Appointed
Forwarder mechanism. It updates RFC 6325, updates RFC 7177, and
obsoletes RFC 6439.
Working Group Summary
WG has discussed this for 2 years.
The consensus seemed reasonable.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?
Huawei plans to implement this draft.
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?
RTG-DIR Reviewer: Joel Halpern
No mib doctor, yang doctor, Media type or other expert review.
Document shephered: Susan Hares
WG chairs: Jon Hudson and Susan Hares
Responsible AD: Alia Atlas
RTG-DIR reviewer: Joel Halpern
(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
Shepherd reviewed the latest document, check WG IPR, Nits.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
sec-dir might review the security considerations for "Port-Shutdown messages"
in section 9 - Security Considerations. But this review will come as
part of the sec-dir review.
(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
(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.
4/20/2016, reposted on 8/26/2016
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
2 IPR disclosures where made prior to WG LC (9/28/2015, 4/27/2015).
(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?
Light, but reasonable for this stage of WG. The WG has discussed these changes over 18 months
so the whole WG seems to agree.
(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.)
Two possible downrefs:
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7180
(Obsoleted by RFC 7780)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
[remove once this is fixed]
- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7180
(Obsoleted by RFC 7780)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
no MIB, media, yang, or URI reviews needed.
(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?
No normative references.
(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 ref normative references.
Two informative references fixes: RFC7180 replaced by RFC7880.
[ChannelTunnel] - D. Eastlake, M. Umair, Y. Li, draft-ietf-trill-
channel-tunnel, work in progress.
-- has been submitted to IESG.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
(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).
IANA - section has the definitions of additional PDUs.
(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 new 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 XML, BNF, MIB or yang in the document.