Skip to main content

EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon Filtering
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-06-20
09 (System) Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed)
2024-06-20
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-06-20
09 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-09.txt
2024-06-20
09 (System) New version approved
2024-06-20
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jorge Rabadan , Kiran Nagaraj , Wen Lin
2024-06-20
09 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2024-06-11
08 Gunter Van de Velde https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/nJiVUSXkIqhhDcdXtGomjqwnDMw/
2024-06-11
08 (System) Changed action holders to Jorge Rabadan, Kiran Nagaraj, Wen Lin, Ali Sajassi (IESG state changed)
2024-06-11
08 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2024-06-10
08 (System) Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed)
2024-06-10
08 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-06-06
08 Jouni Korhonen Request for Early review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. Sent review to list.
2024-05-16
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2024-05-16
08 Zhaohui Zhang Requested Early review by GENART
2024-03-20
08 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde
2024-03-07
08 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Early review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-03-07
08 Jean Mahoney Assignment of request for Early review by GENART to Matt Joras was marked no-response
2023-12-07
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Matt Joras
2023-12-04
08 Zhaohui Zhang Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com, zzhang@juniper.net, matthew.bocci@nokia.com from slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com, zzhang@juniper.net
2023-12-04
08 Zhaohui Zhang
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong concurrence of a few active EVPN contributors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

3. 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Nokia’s SROS supports sections 2.3 and 3 of the spec. These two require code compared to RFC8365. They also support SHT=00 in section 2.2 and plan to add other types.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No Yang model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal language used.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.
This document specifies standard protocol actions that require interoperability.
Yes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Data Tracker does not show IPR.
Authors have responded "not aware of undisclosed IPR" during WGLC.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Two I-ID nits were reported but they should be ok:

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7432, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC7432
    though, so this could be OK.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8365, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8365
    though, so this could be OK.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Yes.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-12-04
08 Zhaohui Zhang Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston
2023-12-04
08 Zhaohui Zhang IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2023-12-04
08 Zhaohui Zhang IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-12-04
08 Zhaohui Zhang Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-12-04
08 Zhaohui Zhang
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong concurrence of a few active EVPN contributors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

3. 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Nokia’s SROS supports sections 2.3 and 3 of the spec. These two require code compared to RFC8365. They also support SHT=00 in section 2.2 and plan to add other types.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No Yang model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal language used.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.
This document specifies standard protocol actions that require interoperability.
Yes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Data Tracker does not show IPR.
Authors have responded "not aware of undisclosed IPR" during WGLC.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Two I-ID nits were reported but they should be ok:

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7432, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC7432
    though, so this could be OK.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8365, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8365
    though, so this could be OK.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Yes.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-12-04
08 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-08.txt
2023-12-04
08 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-12-04
08 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-12-04
07 Zhaohui Zhang Requested Early review by GENART
2023-12-04
07 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-07.txt
2023-12-04
07 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-12-04
07 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-10-23
06 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-06.txt
2023-10-23
06 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-10-23
06 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-10-09
05 (System) Document has expired
2023-09-27
05 Zhaohui Zhang Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com, zzhang@juniper.net from slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-09-27
05 Zhaohui Zhang Document shepherd changed to Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
2023-09-27
05 Zhaohui Zhang Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-09-27
05 Zhaohui Zhang Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2023-09-27
05 Zhaohui Zhang This document now replaces draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon instead of None
2023-06-30
05 Matthew Bocci Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, mankamis@cisco.com from slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-06-30
05 Matthew Bocci Document shepherd changed to Mankamana Prasad Mishra
2023-04-07
05 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-05.txt
2023-04-07
05 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-04-07
05 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-04-07
04 Himanshu Shah Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Himanshu Shah. Sent review to list.
2023-03-29
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Himanshu Shah
2023-03-20
04 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Bruno Decraene was rejected
2023-03-17
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene
2023-03-17
04 Dhruv Dhody Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Dhruv Dhody was rejected
2023-03-17
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2023-03-14
04 Stephane Litkowski Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-03-14
04 Stephane Litkowski Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2023-03-14
04 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2023-01-10
04 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-04.txt
2023-01-10
04 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-01-10
04 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2022-12-25
03 (System) Document has expired
2022-07-21
03 Matthew Bocci Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2022-07-21
03 Matthew Bocci Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski
2022-06-23
03 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-03.txt
2022-06-23
03 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2022-06-23
03 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2022-04-18
02 (System) Document has expired
2022-03-02
02 Stephane Litkowski Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2022-03-02
02 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-10-15
02 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-02.txt
2021-10-15
02 (System) New version approved
2021-10-15
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jorge Rabadan , Kiran Nagaraj , Wen Lin
2021-10-15
02 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2021-10-14
01 (System) Document has expired
2021-04-12
01 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-01.txt
2021-04-12
01 (System) New version approved
2021-04-12
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jorge Rabadan , Kiran Nagaraj , Wen Lin
2021-04-12
01 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2020-10-12
00 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-00.txt
2020-10-12
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-10-09
00 Jorge Rabadan Set submitter to "Jorge Rabadan ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: bess-chairs@ietf.org
2020-10-09
00 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision