Skip to main content

EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect Service
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-05-08
08 Gunter Van de Velde https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/7hVvGsBTpAMHudmEhnis6MVSiHU/
2024-05-08
08 (System) Changed action holders to Ali Sajassi, Patrice Brissette, Jim Uttaro, John Drake, Sami Boutros, Jorge Rabadan (IESG state changed)
2024-05-08
08 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-04-23
08 Gunter Van de Velde Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (incoming AD)
2024-03-20
08 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde
2023-09-21
08 Andrew Alston
Following up on length of author list and will submit a list of nits to the authors shortly that need to be resolved prior to …
Following up on length of author list and will submit a list of nits to the authors shortly that need to be resolved prior to last call
2023-09-21
08 Andrew Alston IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation
2022-11-06
08 (System) Changed action holders to Andrew Alston (IESG state changed)
2022-11-06
08 Andrew Alston IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-10-24
08 Luc André Burdet New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-08.txt
2022-10-24
08 Patrice Brissette New version approved
2022-10-24
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jim Uttaro , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , Sami Boutros
2022-10-24
08 Luc André Burdet Uploaded new revision
2022-08-22
07 Gyan Mishra Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra. Sent review to list.
2022-08-17
07 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Gyan Mishra
2022-08-17
07 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Gyan Mishra
2022-08-17
07 Andrew Alston Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-06-27
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?

The RFC type requested is "Proposed Standard". The draft defines some protocol extensions are requires interoperability so the intended document type is right.


(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 document defines a way to multiplex multiple attachment circuits (that spans multiple Ethernet segments and physical interfaces) into a single EVPN VPWS service including multi-homing.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are multiple existing implementations from this specification. There hasn't been any substantive change or issues on the draft.



Personnel:

Stephane Litkowski is the document shepherd
Andrew Alston 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 read the document and provided comments to the authors that have been addressed.
References and IANA section has been checked as well.

The document is considered as ready.


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

No concern.

(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 concern

(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 are two IPR disclosures on the document and WG didn't comment or raised concern about these IPRs.


(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 WG 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.

Nits have been addressed by authors

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

not applicable

(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 (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 clear

(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 expert review required

(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.

not applicable

(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?

not applicable
2022-06-27
07 Stephane Litkowski Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston
2022-06-27
07 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-06-27
07 Stephane Litkowski IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-06-27
07 Stephane Litkowski IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-06-16
07 Luc André Burdet New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-07.txt
2022-06-16
07 (System) New version approved
2022-06-16
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jim Uttaro , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , Sami Boutros
2022-06-16
07 Luc André Burdet Uploaded new revision
2022-06-16
06 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?

The RFC type requested is "Proposed Standard". The draft defines some protocol extensions are requires interoperability so the intended document type is right.


(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 document defines a way to multiplex multiple attachment circuits (that spans multiple Ethernet segments and physical interfaces) into a single EVPN VPWS service including multi-homing.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are multiple existing implementations from this specification. There hasn't been any substantive change or issues on the draft.



Personnel:

Stephane Litkowski is the document shepherd
Andrew Alston 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 read the document and provided comments to the authors that have been addressed.
References and IANA section has been checked as well.

The document is considered as ready.


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

No concern.

(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 concern

(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 are two IPR disclosures on the document and WG didn't comment or raised concern about these IPRs.


(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 WG 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.

Nits have been addressed by authors

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

not applicable

(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 (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 clear

(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 expert review required

(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.

not applicable

(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?

not applicable
2022-06-15
06 Luc André Burdet New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-06.txt
2022-06-15
06 (System) New version approved
2022-06-14
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jim Uttaro , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , Sami Boutros
2022-06-14
06 Luc André Burdet Uploaded new revision
2022-02-08
05 Luc André Burdet New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-05.txt
2022-02-08
05 (System) New version approved
2022-02-08
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jim Uttaro , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , Sami Boutros
2022-02-08
05 Luc André Burdet Uploaded new revision
2022-02-07
04 Patrice Brissette New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-04.txt
2022-02-07
04 (System) New version approved
2022-02-07
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jim Uttaro , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , Sami Boutros
2022-02-07
04 Patrice Brissette Uploaded new revision
2022-01-18
03 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?

The RFC type requested is "Proposed Standard". The draft defines some protocol extensions are requires interoperability so the intended document type is right.


(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 document defines a way to multiplex multiple attachment circuits (that spans multiple Ethernet segments and physical interfaces) into a single EVPN VPWS service including multi-homing.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are multiple existing implementations from this specification. There hasn't been any substantive change or issues on the draft.



Personnel:

Stephane Litkowski is the document 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 read the document and provided comments to the authors that have been addressed.
References and IANA section has been checked as well.

The document is considered as ready.


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

No concern.

(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 concern

(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 are two IPR disclosures on the document and WG didn't comment or raised concern about these IPRs.


(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 WG 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.

Nits have been addressed by authors

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

not applicable

(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 (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 clear

(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 expert review required

(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.

not applicable

(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?

not applicable
2021-12-09
03 (System) Document has expired
2021-11-16
03 Stephane Litkowski Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-11-16
03 Stephane Litkowski Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski
2021-11-16
03 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-09-27
03 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-09-27
03 Stephane Litkowski Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-09-27
03 Stephane Litkowski Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-06-07
03 Luc André Burdet New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-03.txt
2021-06-07
03 (System) New version approved
2021-06-07
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Jim Uttaro , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , Sami Boutros
2021-06-07
03 Luc André Burdet Uploaded new revision
2021-03-12
02 (System) Document has expired
2020-09-08
02 Luc André Burdet New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-02.txt
2020-09-08
02 (System) New version approved
2020-09-08
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Wen Lin , Ali Sajassi , Sami Boutros , John Drake , bess-chairs@ietf.org, …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Wen Lin , Ali Sajassi , Sami Boutros , John Drake , bess-chairs@ietf.org, Jim Uttaro , Patrice Brissette
2020-09-08
02 Luc André Burdet Uploaded new revision
2019-12-08
01 (System) Document has expired
2019-06-06
01 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-01.txt
2019-06-06
01 (System) New version approved
2019-06-06
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Sami Boutros , Jim Uttaro , Patrice Brissette , Ali Sajassi …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Sami Boutros , Jim Uttaro , Patrice Brissette , Ali Sajassi , Wen Lin
2019-06-06
01 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision
2018-11-05
00 (System) Document has expired
2018-04-26
00 Matthew Bocci This document now replaces draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc instead of None
2018-04-26
00 Ali Sajassi New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-00.txt
2018-04-26
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-04-25
00 Ali Sajassi Set submitter to ""A. Sajassi" ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: bess-chairs@ietf.org
2018-04-25
00 Ali Sajassi Uploaded new revision