Draft Title: Multicast in VPLS
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-06
(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.
This is the proper type of RFC as this is a framework document.
(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:
The draft describes a framework for providing a Metro Ethernet Forum service,
known as the Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) service, over an MPLS network. An E-Tree
service is defined by one or more roots and one or more leaves. Roots can
send traffic to other roots and leaves and receive traffic from other roots
and leaves within the same service instance. Leaves can only receive traffic
from roots and send traffic to roots in the same service instance. The draft
describes a reference architecture model for E-Tree services over an MPLS
network, describes use cases and calls out the gaps that need to be
addressed in existing L2VPN solutions namely VPLS and EVPN.
Working Group Summary:
This document is an L2VPN Working Group document. It has gone through few
iterations and addressed quite few comments/input/edits from the WG chairs
that resulted in draft version 4 that passed WG LC with many people
supporting it. Versions 5 and 6 addressed some indicts.
Document Quality:
The document has good quality. It is clear on the technical content and
written with good English and layout. There are a couple of edits needed
that can be taken up during the RFC edits.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com)
Area Director: Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk)
(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 Shepherd did a full review of version 3 and version 4. All comments
that were provided on version 3 were addressed in version 4. In addition,
versions 5 and 6 addressed some indicts.
(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.
No.
(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 specific 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. No IPR had been filed in reference to this draft.
(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?
The current draft is supported by several who responded to the last call. There
were no comments or objections from the WG.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize 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 required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.
(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 - all normative references are to RFCs and other standard forums
documentations (IEEE and MEF).
(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 - all normative references are upward.
(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 - no impact on status of existing RFCs.
(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 is not applicable to this draft, as this is a framework draft.
(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.
None.
(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 sections written in a formal language.