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?
The type of RFC which is requested is Proposed Standard.
It defines information exchange between BGP peers, together with the
format of the messages containing the information, as well as the
processing rules. As such the type of RFC requested is appropriate.
The type of RFC being requested appears in the header.
(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:
A BGP speaker can send Outbound Route Filters (ORF) to a peer. The
peer uses ORFs to filter routing updates that it sends to the BGP
speaker. Using ORF, a BGP speaker can realize a "route pull"
paradigm, in which the BGP speaker, on demand, pulls certain routes
from the peer.
This document defines a new ORF-type, called the "Covering Prefixes
ORF (CP-ORF)". CP-ORF is applicable in Virtual Hub-and-Spoke VPNs.
It also is applicable BGP/MPLS Ethernet VPN (EVPN) networks.
Working Group Summary
There has been no controversy relating to the technical aspect of
this Document. A late IPR disclosure was made against this document
(see question 8). The WG did not oppose to the progress of the
The WG Chairs are aware of one implementation plan of the
technologies described in this document. It should be noted that the
contexts (Virtual Hub-and-Spoke VPNs and EVPNs) in which this
Document applies are fairly recent thus explaining that
implementations are not yet available
Martin Vigoureux is the Document Shepherd
Adrian Farrel 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 Document Shepherd did an extensive review of the document,
checking for technology soundness, consistency with related
documents and iana registries. The Document is ready.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The Document was quite importantly discussed on the L3VPN mailing
list since its first version. The most important changes/additions
to the draft happened at that time. The document has been presented
several times and discussed substantially at WG face to face meetings
Although there was no reaction the the WG LC (support or opposition)
the Document Shepherd has no concern about the depth/breadth of the
reviews that have been performed.
(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 such need.
(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 particular concern nor issues.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
IPR disclosures exist against this Document. IPR disclosures came
after the decision to adopt the Document as a WG item. Authors of
the Document are themselves authors of the disclosed IPR. The
document has been downgraded back to an individual document and
re-polled for adoption, and adopted.
(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 solid. Several members of the WG participated to the
discussion on this document and expressed their support at the time
(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 extreme situation.
(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
I-Dnits is clean
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
no need for that.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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. at the time of this write-up only draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn is not
an RFC (but is currently in AUTH48 state).
(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 modify any existing 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).
The IANA section is consistent with the body of the document. The Document
makes use of two Code-Points from two different registries, the policy of which is
FCFS. The cope-points were allocated at the time of a previous version of this
(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 new IANA registry is requested.
(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 such pieces of text, thus no such review/test performed.