As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
This requested RFC type is Informational.
This indicated in the header and is consistent with the body of the Document.
The Document describes the use and some deployment considerations of EVPN technology. As such it provides valuable information to anyone willing to deploy and/or operate such technology.
(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:
This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP MPLS based
Ethernet VPN (EVPN) in a simple and fairly common deployment
scenario. The different EVPN procedures will be explained on the
example scenario, analyzing the benefits and trade-offs of each
option. This document is intended to provide a simplified guide
for the deployment of EVPN in Service Provider networks.
Working Group Summary
The BESS WG support the publication of this Document as an Informational RFC
The Document is very well written and clear. There are multiple implementations of the EVPN technology.
This Document describes in a very clear manner the use of the EVPN technology building blocks and components.
As such it stands as a very valuable document to anyone wishing to deploy and operate EVPNs
Martin Vigoureux is the Document Shepherd
Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director
(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 Document Shepherd did a full review of the Document but found nearly nothing to comment on as the Document was already of a very good quality.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern at all.
(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
No portion of the Document requires a review from a particular broader perspective.
(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
No specific concern or 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.
All authors have reported not being aware of any undisclosed IPR pertaining to this Document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosure exists against this Document.
(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?
Consensus is really solid.
(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 such threat.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
IDnits is nearly clean.
There are a couple of references which were mistakenly left as Normative refs (RFC 4364 and RFC7117.
They are not needed and should be removed by the RFC Editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required by this Document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes. Yet, see ID-nits point above.
(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?
All Normative References are RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
There is no Downward Normative Reference.
(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.
The publication of this Document will not change the status of any RFC.
(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).
This Document makes no request to 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.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No section of the Document is written in a formal language.