Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup


Document Shepherd Write-Up

(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

   The document was originally Informational but as part of the AD review this
   was changed primarily because the description of the proxy function is much
   more detailed than the one of 7432. As such it would make sense for
   implementers to be aware of such detailed specification. Furthermore the
   7432 proxy function is augmented with the use of NA Flags. Therefore the
   document was moved to Standard Track and Updates 7432. Below is the original
   text of the write-up.

   This is appropriate as it describes operational implications of address
   resolution using proxy-ARP/ND in EVPN networks. It makes recommendations for
   procedures that help to reduce address resolution traffic flooding in EVPN,
   as well as some examples of different deployment scenarios. It does not
   specify new mandatory protocol procedures or make any IANA registry requests.

   The intended status is properly indicated.

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

Technical Summary

 The EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route can optionally carry IPv4 and
   IPv6 addresses associated with a MAC address. Remote PEs can use this
   information to reply locally (act as proxy) to IPv4 ARP requests and
   IPv6 Neighbor Solicitation messages (or 'unicast-forward' them to the
   owner of the MAC) and reduce/suppress the flooding produced by the
   Address Resolution procedure. This EVPN capability is extremely
   useful in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) and Data Centers (DCs) with
   large broadcast domains, where the amount of ARP/ND flooded traffic
   causes issues on routers and CEs. This document describes how the
   EVPN Proxy-ARP/ND function may be implemented to help IXPs and other
   operators deal with the issues derived from Address Resolution in
   large broadcast domains.

Working Group Summary

   The document was developed to address the desire to minimise flooding of
   traffic associated with address resolution in EVPN. It is particularly
   important due to the large size that EVPN networks can grow to, partucularly
   in terms of the numbers of CEs and hosts. It makes recommendations for
   implementations of Proxy-ARP/ND to help operators deal with the issues
   derived from Address Resolution in large broadcast domains.

   There are no IPR declarations on the draft .

Document Quality

   I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents
   WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over
   a number of years. The document was also reviewed by the IETF Ops area and
   comments addressed

   The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need


   The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (
   The responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux

(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 reviewed v06 of the document. I had no significant
  technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved
  in version 07.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a
  period of a number of IETFs. v04 of the document was also reviewed by the
  IETF Ops directorate and comments addressed

(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 further review required.

(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.

   Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated
   that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in
   accordance with BCP 78 and 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

   There are no IPR declarations on the draft.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants.
    There were no objections during last call.

(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.)

  None indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

      ID-Nits passes.

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

   There are no relevant formal review criteria.

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

  Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative or normative.

(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?


(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.


(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.

  This document does not change the status of any 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 document makes no requests of IANA.

(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.

   There are no IANA actions.

(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.

   There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.