Skip to main content

Preference-based EVPN DF Election
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-03-23
08 Amy Vezza Changed action holders to Andrew Alston
2022-03-23
08 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Andrew Alston
2022-03-01
08 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD Evaluation
2021-11-04
08 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Vigoureux (IESG state changed)
2021-11-04
08 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-09-27
08 Stephane Litkowski
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed standard is requested. The document involves some protocol exchange that require interoperability, thus the type of RFC is accurate.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document proposes a new DF election algorithm which is based on administrative preference. It also handles preemption, non-preemption capability for this algorithm.

Working Group Summary:

There was a "last minute" agreement on managing the highest/lowest pref algorithm using different DF algs rather than a single one+local configs.

Document Quality:

There is implementation. The document has been reviewed by multiple people in the group and all comments have been adressed. The document quality is considered as good enough to progress.



Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Stephane Litkowski is the doc shepherd.
Martin Vigoureux is the responsible AD.

(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 shepherd considers the document as ready for publication, and deep review has been done and multiple rounds of comments/discussions have been addressed by the authors.

(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 issue

(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.

There is one IPR disclosed.

(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?

There is a solid consensus.

(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.

No nits

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

n/a

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(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

(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

(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 8126).

IANA section is OK

(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

(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, YANG modules, etc.

n/a

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

n/a
2021-09-27
08 Stephane Litkowski Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux
2021-09-27
08 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-09-27
08 Stephane Litkowski IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-09-27
08 Stephane Litkowski IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-09-23
08 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-08.txt
2021-09-23
08 (System) New version approved
2021-09-23
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "satyamoh@cisco.com" <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "satyamoh@cisco.com" <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
2021-09-23
08 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2021-09-13
07 (System) Document has expired
2021-04-12
07 Stephane Litkowski
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed standard is requested. The document involves some protocol exchange that require interoperability, thus the type of RFC is accurate.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document proposes a new DF election algorithm which is based on administrative preference. It also handles preemption, non-preemption capability for this algorithm.

Working Group Summary:

There was a "last minute" agreement on managing the highest/lowest pref algorithm using different DF algs rather than a single one+local configs.

Document Quality:

There is implementation. The document has been reviewed by multiple people in the group and all comments have been adressed. The document quality is considered as good enough to progress.



Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Stephane Litkowski is the doc shepherd.
Martin Vigoureux is the responsible AD.

(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 shepherd considers the document as ready for publication, and deep review has been done and multiple rounds of comments/discussions have been addressed by the authors.

(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 issue

(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.

There is one IPR disclosed.

(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?

There is a solid consensus.

(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.

No nits

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

n/a

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(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

(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

(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 8126).

IANA section is OK

(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

(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, YANG modules, etc.

n/a

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

n/a
2021-03-12
07 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-07.txt
2021-03-12
07 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2021-03-12
07 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2020-12-21
06 (System) Document has expired
2020-06-19
06 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-06.txt
2020-06-19
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2020-06-19
06 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2020-06-19
05 (System) Document has expired
2020-02-26
05 Stephane Litkowski Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2020-02-26
05 Stephane Litkowski Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2020-02-26
05 Stephane Litkowski Notification list changed to Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>
2020-02-26
05 Stephane Litkowski Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski
2020-02-26
05 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2019-12-17
05 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-05.txt
2019-12-17
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2019-12-17
05 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2019-10-29
Jasmine Magallanes Posted related IPR disclosure: Juniper's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-04's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df
2019-06-25
04 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-04.txt
2019-06-25
04 (System) New version approved
2019-06-25
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, " satyamoh@cisco.com" <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
2019-06-25
04 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2019-06-24
03 (System) Document has expired
2018-12-21
03 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-03.txt
2018-12-21
03 (System) New version approved
2018-12-21
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, " satyamoh@cisco.com" <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
2018-12-21
03 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2018-10-22
02 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-02.txt
2018-10-22
02 (System) New version approved
2018-10-22
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, " satyamoh@cisco.com" <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
2018-10-22
02 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2018-10-11
01 (System) Document has expired
2018-04-09
01 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-01.txt
2018-04-09
01 (System) New version approved
2018-04-09
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, " satyamoh@cisco.com" <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
2018-04-09
01 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2017-12-23
00 (System) Document has expired
2017-06-21
00 Martin Vigoureux This document now replaces draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-pref-df instead of None
2017-06-21
00 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-00.txt
2017-06-21
00 (System) New version approved
2017-06-21
00 Jorge Rabadan
Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Satya Ranjan Mohanty <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, …
Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Satya Ranjan Mohanty <satyamoh@cisco.com>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, John Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>
2017-06-21
00 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision