Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transparent Transport over MPLS
draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-08

[Ballot discuss]
I was very surprised to see the following in the security considerations section and would like to work with you on improvements.
  As an informational document specifying methods that use only
  existing standards and facilities, this document has no effect on
  security.

Having watched many TRILL documents go by in the last 4 years, we didn't push too hard on security in some cases as a result of the restriction to a campus network.  This particular document extends into multi-tenancy where there are certainly security considerations introduced to be able to provide isolation properties.  MPLS offers no security and it is being used to join TRILL campuses as described int his draft.  This is done without any requirement of an overlay protocol to provide security - why is that the case?  Minimally, the considerations need to be explained.  Ideally, a solution should be offered to protect tenants when TRILL campuses are joined.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Susan Hares , trill-chairs@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document: - 'TRILL Transparent
Transport over MPLS'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-03-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies methods to interconnect multiple Transparent
  Interconnection of Lots of links (TRILL) sites with an intervening
  MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS standards. This draft
  addresses two problems as follows:

  1) Providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that are
      separated by an MPLS provider network.

  2) Providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different
      tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Date of Shepherd review: 2/18/2018

(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?

Informational as noted on the title page. This document does not
change any existing standard.

(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 methods to interconnect multiple Transparent
  Interconnection of Lots of links (TRILL) sites with an intervening
  MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS standards. This draft
  addresses two problems as follows:
  1) Providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that are
      separated by an MPLS provider network.
  2) Providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different
      tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network.

  Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

  Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
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? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?

Personnel:
    Document Shepherd: Susan 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.

a) requested and resolved 2 target reviews by MPLS related chairs
(Loa Anderson and Andy Mallis)
b) ID Nits
c) deep dive of technology in early days
d) review of final document.

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

No.  It just doesn't get any better than to get the MPLS gurus
(Loa Anderson, Andy Mallis, and Matthew Bocci) to
reviewed this draft and suggest changes.

(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.

The draft was reviewed by Any Malis who is knowledgeable in MPLS and
his comments were resolved:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08043.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08055.html

(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. 

(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.

Yes:
  Mohammed Umair
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08158.html
  Kingston Smiler Selvaraj
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08166.html
  Donald Eastlake 3rd
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08159.html
  Lucy Yong
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08168.html

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No.

(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?

Vendors in the WG (Huawei, IP Infusion, and others) wanted to have
this informational draft in order to provide wisdom for customers.
This draft provides a clear explanation for these customers on how
to link two campuses via an MPLS provider network.
TRILL deployments in Europe and Asia (Japan and India)
originally asked for this type of insight. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent?

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 such formal review required.

(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?

No.  Nits indicates things are fine.

Please note this draft references the original ISO ISIS specification
(ISO10589).  This is valid, but sometimes the NITS will complain.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
    3967)?

No. 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs?

This document does not change the status of any existing 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.

This document 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 document creates nonew 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.

There are no such sections.