IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS)
draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-01-13
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-12-29
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-12-08
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-11-04
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-11-04
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-11-04
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-11-04
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-11-04
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-11-04
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-11-04
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-11-04
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-30
|
16 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-10-30
|
16 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-10-30
|
16 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-30
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-10-30
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | New revision available |
2014-10-30
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-10-30
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing the SecDir review comments and working through my questions. SecDir review: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05146.html |
2014-10-30
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-10-30
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-10-30
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-10-29
|
15 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-10-29
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-10-29
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-10-29
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-10-29
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan. |
2014-10-28
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] The draft looks good, I just have a question I'd like to discuss to see if one more consideration should be added to … [Ballot discuss] The draft looks good, I just have a question I'd like to discuss to see if one more consideration should be added to the Data Plane security considerations. The section starts off as follows: The data traffic between CE and PE is not encrypted and it is possible that in an insecure environment, a malicious user may tap into the CE to PE connection and generate traffic using the spoofed destination MAC address on the Ethernet Attachment Circuit. If it's possible to tap the connection to generate traffic, couldn't it also be tapped for monitoring purposes? This would leave the possibility of active attacks (you've already described one) and passive attacks, which we see with pervasive monitoring. If this is possible, how about the following text to include this consideration (or some other variation is fine too if you'd like to propose something): The data traffic between CE and PE is not encrypted and it is possible that in an insecure environment, a malicious user may tap into the CE to PE connection and could conduct an active or passive attack. An example of an active attack would be generating traffic using the spoofed destination MAC address on the Ethernet Attachment Circuit and a passive attack could include targeted or pervasive monitoring [RFC7258] between the CE and PE. Thanks. |
2014-10-28
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing the SecDir review comments: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05146.html |
2014-10-28
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-10-27
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-10-23
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2014-10-23
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2014-10-16
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-10-30 |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-15
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Himanshu Shah | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Himanshu Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-15.txt |
2014-09-05
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Warren Kumari. |
2014-08-08
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Revised I-D to address SecDir review and IANA comments |
2014-08-08
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-08-07
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dacheng Zhang. |
2014-08-07
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-07-31
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-07-31
|
14 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. Further, IANA understands that Sections 8.1 and 8.2 are specifications intended for future authors who might have an interest in pursuing this protocol. Since these specification do not require action at this time, and are unrelated to IANA, IANA requests that these sections be moved to a different part of the document - allowing future authors to understand that, in the event there was further interest in the protocol, that there would be specific IANA actions that would need to be included in a new draft document. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-07-30
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2014-07-30
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2014-07-24
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang |
2014-07-24
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS)) to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS)) to Historic RFC The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document: - 'IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS)' as Historic 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 2014-08-07. This last call period has been lengthened to take into account IETF-90. 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 A Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is used to interconnect systems across a wide-area or metropolitan-area network, making it appear that they are on a private LAN. The systems which are interconnected may themselves be LAN switches. If, however, they are IP hosts or IP routers, certain simplifications to the operation of the VPLS are possible. We call this simplified type of VPLS an "IP-only LAN Service" (IPLS). In an IPLS, as in a VPLS, LAN interfaces are run in promiscuous mode, and frames are forwarded based on their destination MAC addresses. However, the maintenance of the MAC forwarding tables is done via signaling, rather than via the MAC address learning procedures specified in [IEEE 802.1D]. This draft specifies the protocol extensions and procedures for support of the IPLS service. The original intent was to provide an alternate solution to VPLS for those PE routers that were not capable of learning MAC address through data plane. This became non-issue with newer hardware. The concepts put forth by this draft are still valuable and are adopted in one form or other by newer work such as Ethernet VPN in L2VPN Working Group and possible data center applications. At this point, no further action is planned to update this document and is published simply as a historic record of the ideas. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-07-17
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-06-07
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | Waiting for: - shepherd to confirm write-up is still accurate - chairs to tell WG what has happened |
2014-06-07
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-06-04
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-06-04
|
14 | Himanshu Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14.txt |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-03-13
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Discussing with Chairs and Shepherd work needed to present this document as Historic. |
2014-03-13
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-03-12
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or … Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (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? Historic. After a prolonged period when this was presented as Informational, interest waned and progress became very slow. This document is now presented as a record of discussion that happened in the working group, and so Historic is appropriate. (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: A Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [VPLS] is used to interconnect systems across a wide-area or metropolitan-area network, making it appear that they are on a private LAN. The systems which are interconnected may themselves be LAN switches. If, however, they are IP hosts or IP routers, certain simplifications to the operation of the VPLS are possible. We call this simplified type of VPLS an "IP-only LAN Service" (IPLS). In an IPLS, as in a VPLS, LAN interfaces are run in promiscuous mode, and frames are forwarded based on their destination MAC addresses. However, the maintenance of the MAC forwarding tables is done via signaling, rather than via the MAC address learning procedures specified in [IEEE 802.1D]. This draft specifies the protocol extensions and procedures for support of the IPLS service. Working Group Summary: This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft. It is considered to be an informational draft, with the last few iterations of the draft now cleaning up references. The authors There was considerable debate during and after the WG last call which resulted in new revisions being issued to resolve various comments. Document Quality: The document provides a clear and concise set of requirements for IPLS - broken down into different requirement areas. As a requirements draft there is no protocol implement. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Andrew McLachlan (amclachl@cisco.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 has reviewed the mailing archives and the done a full review of the last 4 versions of the drafts. The last major revision of the draft was -09 with the subsequent versions -10 until the current -12 focusing on tidying up grammar and language. (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. (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 document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft, and the consensus appears to be that it is ready to move to RFC. (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. Nit found for “couldn't find a document date in the document”. Looking to RFC Editors to help resolve this. On the matter of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, all the original authors and they are all willing to grant (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. (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). The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to create and populate the new Relative Location Parameters registry. (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 sections written in a formal language. |
2014-03-12
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-03-12
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or … Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (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? Historic. After a prolonged period when this was presented as Informational, interest waned and progress became very slow. This document is now presented as a record of discussion that happened in the working group, and so Historic is appropriate. (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: A Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [VPLS] is used to interconnect systems across a wide-area or metropolitan-area network, making it appear that they are on a private LAN. The systems which are interconnected may themselves be LAN switches. If, however, they are IP hosts or IP routers, certain simplifications to the operation of the VPLS are possible. We call this simplified type of VPLS an "IP-only LAN Service" (IPLS). In an IPLS, as in a VPLS, LAN interfaces are run in promiscuous mode, and frames are forwarded based on their destination MAC addresses. However, the maintenance of the MAC forwarding tables is done via signaling, rather than via the MAC address learning procedures specified in [IEEE 802.1D]. This draft specifies the protocol extensions and procedures for support of the IPLS service. Working Group Summary: This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft. It is considered to be an informational draft, with the last few iterations of the draft now cleaning up references. The authors There was considerable debate during and after the WG last call which resulted in new revisions being issued to resolve various comments. Document Quality: The document provides a clear and concise set of requirements for IPLS - broken down into different requirement areas. As a requirements draft there is no protocol implement. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Andrew McLachlan (amclachl@cisco.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 has reviewed the mailing archives and the done a full review of the last 4 versions of the drafts. The last major revision of the draft was -09 with the subsequent versions -10 until the current -12 focusing on tidying up grammar and language. (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. (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 document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft, and the consensus appears to be that it is ready to move to RFC. (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. Nit found for “couldn't find a document date in the document”. Looking to RFC Editors to help resolve this. On the matter of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, all the original authors and they are all willing to grant (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. (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). The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to create and populate the new Relative Location Parameters registry. (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 sections written in a formal language. |
2014-03-12
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-03-11
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Revision 13 has rebranded this I-D as Historic |
2014-03-11
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Intended Status changed to Historic from Informational |
2014-03-11
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Hi authors, shepherds, chairs, I have inherited this document. The data tracker shows it in AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed state, and that it has been … Hi authors, shepherds, chairs, I have inherited this document. The data tracker shows it in AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed state, and that it has been there for a good while. Unfortunately, I don't see any of Stewart's review in the data tracker, just a comment that he thinks it might be better as Historic. Looking on the L2VPN list I also don't see any discussion after WG last call - just two updates and an IPR poll. Could someone (Andrew?) summarise the discussion and why the I-D got blocked? Thanks, Adrian |
2014-03-05
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-11
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-02-11
|
13 | Himanshu Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-13.txt |
2013-11-26
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | This may be more appropriately published as historic |
2013-11-26
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-11-25
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | Comments sent to authors |
2013-11-25
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Publication Requested |
2013-11-25
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or … Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (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 requirements document. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header. (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: A Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [VPLS] is used to interconnect systems across a wide-area or metropolitan-area network, making it appear that they are on a private LAN. The systems which are interconnected may themselves be LAN switches. If, however, they are IP hosts or IP routers, certain simplifications to the operation of the VPLS are possible. We call this simplified type of VPLS an "IP-only LAN Service" (IPLS). In an IPLS, as in a VPLS, LAN interfaces are run in promiscuous mode, and frames are forwarded based on their destination MAC addresses. However, the maintenance of the MAC forwarding tables is done via signaling, rather than via the MAC address learning procedures specified in [IEEE 802.1D]. This draft specifies the protocol extensions and procedures for support of the IPLS service. Working Group Summary: This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft. It is considered to be an informational draft, with the last few iterations of the draft now cleaning up references. The authors There was considerable debate during and after the WG last call which resulted in new revisions being issued to resolve various comments. Document Quality: The document provides a clear and concise set of requirements for IPLS - broken down into different requirement areas. As a requirements draft there is no protocol implement. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Andrew McLachlan (amclachl@cisco.com) Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) (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 has reviewed the mailing archives and the done a full review of the last 4 versions of the drafts. The last major revision of the draft was -09 with the subsequent versions -10 until the current -12 focusing on tidying up grammar and language. (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. (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 document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft, and the consensus appears to be that it is ready to move to RFC. (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. Nit found for “couldn't find a document date in the document”. Looking to RFC Editors to help resolve this. On the matter of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, all the original authors and they are all willing to grant (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. (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). The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to create and populate the new Relative Location Parameters registry. (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 sections written in a formal language. |
2013-11-25
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or … Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS) Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt (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 requirements document. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header. (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: A Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [VPLS] is used to interconnect systems across a wide-area or metropolitan-area network, making it appear that they are on a private LAN. The systems which are interconnected may themselves be LAN switches. If, however, they are IP hosts or IP routers, certain simplifications to the operation of the VPLS are possible. We call this simplified type of VPLS an "IP-only LAN Service" (IPLS). In an IPLS, as in a VPLS, LAN interfaces are run in promiscuous mode, and frames are forwarded based on their destination MAC addresses. However, the maintenance of the MAC forwarding tables is done via signaling, rather than via the MAC address learning procedures specified in [IEEE 802.1D]. This draft specifies the protocol extensions and procedures for support of the IPLS service. Working Group Summary: This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft. It is considered to be an informational draft, with the last few iterations of the draft now cleaning up references. The authors There was considerable debate during and after the WG last call which resulted in new revisions being issued to resolve various comments. Document Quality: The document provides a clear and concise set of requirements for IPLS - broken down into different requirement areas. As a requirements draft there is no protocol implement. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Andrew McLachlan (amclachl@cisco.com) Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) (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 has reviewed the mailing archives and the done a full review of the last 4 versions of the drafts. The last major revision of the draft was -09 with the subsequent versions -10 until the current -12 focusing on tidying up grammar and language. (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. (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 document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft, and the consensus appears to be that it is ready to move to RFC. (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. Nit found for “couldn't find a document date in the document”. Looking to RFC Editors to help resolve this. On the matter of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, all the original authors and they are all willing to grant (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. (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). The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to create and populate the new Relative Location Parameters registry. (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 sections written in a formal language. |
2013-11-06
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-06
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Document shepherd changed to Andrew McLachlan |
2013-11-06
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-11-06
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-06
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-07-15
|
12 | Himanshu Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.txt |
2012-12-10
|
11 | Himanshu Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11.txt |
2012-07-16
|
10 | Himanshu Shah | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-10.txt |
2010-08-31
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2010-02-27
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-09.txt |
2008-02-23
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-08.txt |
2007-07-08
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-07.txt |
2006-06-07
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-06.txt |
2005-10-24
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-05.txt |
2005-08-09
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-04.txt |
2005-07-19
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-02.txt |
2004-10-04
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-01.txt |
2003-11-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-00.txt |