Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

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 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?

Internet Standard. Yes.

(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 draft extends the Ethernet Segment (ES) concept of RFC7432 so that
an ES can be associated to a set of Ethernet Virtual Circuits (e.g., VLANs)
or other objects such as MPLS Label Switch Paths (LSPs) or Pseudowires (PWs).

Working Group Summary

Consensus achieved- even though most reviews/comments occurred at WGLC (i.e.
late in process)

(Update from WG Co-Chair Matthew Bocci) Note that this document was sent back
to the WG for a second WG last call following an original publication request
on v07 of the draft. This was the result of a number of significant comments in
AD and IESG review and there was a desire to confirm WG consensus on the new
text to resolve these comments. There was working group consensus on this and
v14 of the draft reflects this together with a number of editorial corrections.
The response to an INTdir review was subsequently discussed on the BESS list
but the consensus was that the draft should progress as-is.

Document Quality

There are several existing vendors' implementations of the draft.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Luc André Burdet
Responsible Area Director: Andrew Alston

(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.

Careful review in light of three (3) known vendor implementations and interop.
Review raised quite a few nits/typos/ but more importantly 3 questions of
substance- 1 which had already been raised on the alias before but I did not
find any closure nor was the document updated for it. Will follow-up with
Authors.

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

There are many reviews from several individuals + vendors on the alias showing
good level of review & discussion of this draft.

(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.

Raised as Shepherd review comment: the scale/convergence scheme proposed
is specific to PBB-EVPN. I believe it can be modified/extended to apply to EVPN
as well, and the draft almost implies that at one point. Asking authors to
discuss this point explicitly.

(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.

Yes.
No WG discussion that I know of.

(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?

Many individuals in WG have commented & agreed .

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

All NITS raised by the tool had been found during review & raised to authors'
attention.

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

No.

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

Not in Rev-04, but comment to that effect raised in Review.

(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?

Normative to EVPN-IRB which is in Review.

(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 known.

(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 known.

(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).

IANA allocation already made for new extended community subtype.

(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.

N/A.

(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 formal language sections.

Back