BGP EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon Filtering
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-09-15
|
11 | Bernie Volz | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Dave Thaler Telechat INTDIR review |
2024-09-15
|
11 | Bernie Volz | Closed request for Telechat review by INTDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2024-09-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2024-09-11
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2024-09-11
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2024-09-09
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2024-09-04
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2024-09-04
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2024-09-04
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2024-09-04
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2024-09-04
|
11 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2024-09-04
|
11 | Jenny Bui | IESG has approved the document |
2024-09-04
|
11 | Jenny Bui | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2024-09-04
|
11 | Jenny Bui | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-09-04
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2024-08-22
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | All discuss have resolved. AD will follow up on closing open comments |
2024-08-22
|
11 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2024-08-22
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-08-22
|
11 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Jouni Korhonen for the GENART review. Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback. |
2024-08-22
|
11 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2024-08-19
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-08-17
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my comments. |
2024-08-17
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot comment text updated for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2024-08-17
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed) |
2024-08-17
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-08-17
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2024-08-17
|
11 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-11.txt |
2024-08-17
|
11 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2024-08-17
|
11 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2024-08-14
|
10 | Susan Hares | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list. |
2024-08-08
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Ali Sajassi, Wen Lin, Jorge Rabadan, Kiran Nagaraj (IESG state changed) |
2024-08-08
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2024-08-07
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] I support Roman's DISCUSS, and I have the same (related) question as Orie. Section 1.1 defines "SR-MPLS", but it's not used in this … [Ballot comment] I support Roman's DISCUSS, and I have the same (related) question as Orie. Section 1.1 defines "SR-MPLS", but it's not used in this document after that. (It is present in Section 1.) "VNI" and "Virtual Network Identifier" are also defined but never used. |
2024-08-07
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-08-07
|
10 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-08-07
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. I have no comments from transport protocol points of view. However, I am supporting Roman's discuss and … [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. I have no comments from transport protocol points of view. However, I am supporting Roman's discuss and also noting that IANA is not OK. |
2024-08-07
|
10 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] Section 1.2, paragraph 25 > This document extends the EVPN multihoming procedures to allow > operators to select the preferred Split … [Ballot comment] Section 1.2, paragraph 25 > This document extends the EVPN multihoming procedures to allow > operators to select the preferred Split Horizon method for a given > NVO tunnel according to their specific requirements. The choice > between Local Bias and ESI Label Split Horizon is now allowed for > tunnel encapsulations that support both methods, and this selection > is advertised along with the EVPN A-D per ES route. IP tunnels that > do not support both methods, such as VXLAN or NVGRE, will continue to > adhere to the procedures specified in [RFC8365]. How is the operator able to make the selection of Split Horizon? Is there a YANG model? Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their" * Term "native"; alternatives might be "built-in", "fundamental", "ingrained", "intrinsic", "original" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. "RED", paragraph 1 > 0 0 --> Default SHT. Backwards compatible with [RFC8365] and [RFC7432] This line in an HTML rendition of the draft appears as truncated. Please reformat. |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Amanda Baber | The IANA Considerations needs to clearly state that IANA should create registries for Tables 3 and 4 (the first of which needs a name that … The IANA Considerations needs to clearly state that IANA should create registries for Tables 3 and 4 (the first of which needs a name that uses title case) and state whether "IETF Review" or some other registration procedure applies to them as well as EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags. In addition, "Unused" needs to be changed to either "Unassigned" (available for assignment) or "Reserved" (not available, unless released by RFC). Finally, although this is a minor point, at the end of the last sentence, "registry" should be changed to "registry group." |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Other than supporting Roman's DISCUSS, and Eric's comments, I have nothing to add... |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. I found the writing quite convoluted … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. I found the writing quite convoluted and not easy to follow, especially about what is modified from RFC 7432 and others. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Jeff Zhang for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Relevance to BESS ? Wondering whether this work fits well within BESS charter; some EVPN (e.g., VXLAN) are deployed without using BGP and still require split-horizon (if not mistaken). Strongly suggest to add BGP in the title of this document (and abstract) to make it clear that this is about BGP and not EVPN. ## Abstract `to select the appropriate Split Horizon procedure` does it mean that the other procedure is *not* appropriate or simply *less* appropriate ? ## Section 1 Suggest to clearly define "split horizon" rather than simply burry it in `Split Horizon procedures employed to prevent looped frames`. ## Section 1.1 s/link-local broadcasts/link-layer broadcasts/ ? what about other unknown/multicast traffic ? Several acronyms (e.g., "BUM") keep being expanded in the following sections. ## Section 2.1 Just wondering where the RED bits are defined (they seems to overwrite the single-active bit of section 2), please add a reference to RFC 7432. Also, is there a reason why the SHT bits are not adjacent to the RED ones ? # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## Section 1.1 s/ethernet/Ethernet/ (possibly in other places) Be consistent "Segment *R*outing" vs. "Segment *r*outing" ;-) ## Section 2 Please add markers for 10, 20, ... on figure 1 |
2024-08-06
|
10 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-08-04
|
10 | Orie Steele | [Ballot comment] # Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10 CC @OR13 https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10.txt&submitcheck=True I support Roman's discuss. ## Comments ### Any type restrictions for IETF … [Ballot comment] # Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10 CC @OR13 https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10.txt&submitcheck=True I support Roman's discuss. ## Comments ### Any type restrictions for IETF Review? ``` 721 New registrations in the "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" 722 registry will be made through the "IETF Review" procedure defined in 723 [RFC8126]. This registry is located in the "Border Gateway Protocol 724 (BGP) Extended Communities" registry. ``` RFC8126 notes that IETF Review states: ``` Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient (currently Standards Track, BCP, Informational, Experimental, or Historic). ``` In particular are informational and experimental type RFCs acceptable for this use case? |
2024-08-04
|
10 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2024-08-01
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-07-31
|
10 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] ** Section 5. This document creates a registry called "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" for the 1-octet Flags field in … [Ballot discuss] ** Section 5. This document creates a registry called "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" for the 1-octet Flags field in the ESI Label Extended Community [RFC7432]. ... In addition, the "Multihoming redundancy mode" field is initialized as follows: ... And the field "Split Horizon Type" is initialized as follows: ... New registrations in the "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" registry will be made through the "IETF Review" procedure defined in [RFC8126]. The above IANA guidance is ambiguous. -- How many registries are being created – one or three? The text explicitly says that a registry named "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" will be created. However, the subsequent text says that "Multihoming redundancy mode" and "Split Horizon Type" will be “initialized”? Does “initialized” mean registry creation? -- If "Multihoming redundancy mode" and "Split Horizon Type" are new registries, are they also following an IETF Review policy? The text only says that "EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags" uses IETF Review? |
2024-07-31
|
10 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Jouni Korhonen for the GENART review. |
2024-07-31
|
10 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2024-07-29
|
10 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the document. No substantive comments other than the following (nits line numbers included for latest version): 98 * Segment … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the document. No substantive comments other than the following (nits line numbers included for latest version): 98 * Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane (SRv6), where the relevant 99 EVPN procedures are specified in [RFC9252]. SRv6 is specified in 100 [RFC8986]. Jim> RFC8986 specifies SRv6 Network Programming not SRv6 itself. The correct references should be RFC8402 and RFC8754 (SRH). 190 * SRv6: Segment routing with an IPv6 data plane, [RFC8986]. Jim> Again, incorrect reference. |
2024-07-29
|
10 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-07-15
|
10 | Yaron Sheffer | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. Sent review to list. |
2024-07-15
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2024-07-11
|
10 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Dave Thaler |
2024-07-11
|
10 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2024-07-10
|
10 | Jenny Bui | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-08-08 |
2024-07-10
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot has been issued |
2024-07-10
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-07-10
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-07-10
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-07-10
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-07-09
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-07-09
|
10 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First, a new registry is to be created called the EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags registry. The new registry will be located in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ The new registry will be managed by IETF Review as defined in RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Bit Position Name Reference -----------+-----+----------- 0-1 Multihoming redundancy mode [RFC7432] 2-5 Unassigned 6-7 Split Horizon Type [ RFC-to-be ] Second, a new registry is to be created called the Multihoming redundancy mode field registry. The new registry will be located in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ The new registry will be managed by IETF Review as defined in RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Value Multihoming redundancy mode Reference -----+-------------------------------+----------- 00 All-Active mode [ RFC-to-be ] 01 Single-Active mode [ RFC-to-be ] 10 Unassigned 11 Unassigned Third, a new registry is to be created called the Split Horizon Type field registry. The new registry will also be located in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ The new registry will be managed by IETF Review as defined in RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Value Split Horizon Type value Reference -----+------------------------+----------- 00 Default SHT [ RFC-to-be ] 01 Local Bias [ RFC-to-be ] 10 ESI Label based filtering [ RFC-to-be ] 11 Unassigned We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-07-09
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-07-08
|
10 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-10.txt |
2024-07-08
|
10 | Jorge Rabadan | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan) |
2024-07-08
|
10 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2024-07-02
|
09 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2024-06-30
|
09 | Yaron Sheffer | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. Sent review to list. |
2024-06-29
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2024-06-28
|
09 | Radia Perlman | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Radia Perlman was rejected |
2024-06-28
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Jenny Bui | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Jenny Bui | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-07-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, mankamis@cisco.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-07-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, mankamis@cisco.com, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, zzhang@juniper.net Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon Filtering) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to consider the following document: - 'EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon Filtering' as Proposed Standard 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-07-09. 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 Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) is commonly used with Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) tunnels, as well as MPLS and Segment Routing tunnels. The multi-homing procedures in EVPN may vary based on the type of tunnel used within the EVPN Broadcast Domain. Specifically, there are two multi-homing Split Horizon procedures designed to prevent looped frames on multi-homed Customer Edge (CE) devices: the ESI Label-based procedure and the Local Bias procedure. The ESI Label-based Split Horizon is applied to MPLS-based tunnels, such as MPLSoUDP, while the Local Bias procedure is used for other tunnels, such as VXLAN. Current specifications do not allow operators to choose which Split Horizon procedure to use for tunnel encapsulations that support both methods. Examples of tunnels that may support both procedures include MPLSoGRE, MPLSoUDP, GENEVE, and SRv6. This document updates the EVPN multi-homing procedures described in RFC 8365 and RFC 7432, enabling operators to select the appropriate Split Horizon procedure for a given tunnel based on their specific requirements. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Last call was requested |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-06-25
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
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 |