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?
This is a working group approved document for a chartered item for the
standards track. This is proper for the document as it tries to standardize the
interaction between ForCES forwarding elements. The type of RFC is indicated in
the title page 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:
Technical Summary
This document describes extending the ForCES LFB topology across FEs
i.e inter-FE connectivity without needing any changes to the ForCES
specification by defining the Inter-FE LFB. The Inter-FE LFB
provides ability to pass data, metadata and exceptions across FEs.
The document describes a generic way to transport the mentioned
details but focuses on ethernet transport.
Working Group Summary
The document is straightforward, and there was no difficulty in coming
to consensus on all points described. There were discussion between a
couple of members of the working group, but all issues have been addressed
prior to this document being accepted as a working group document without any
consensus issues. At least one implementation has validated the features
described in the document. There were no issues reported during the last call
and therefore we believe the working group is solidly behind this document.
Document Quality
There is at least one implementation that has validated the features described
in the document. At least one vendor has implemented the specification.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Evangelos Haleplidis and the Responsible Area
Director is Alia Atlas.
(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.
This document is ready for publication.
The author addressed all of the comments as well as incorporated satisfactory
David Black's suggestions for congestion control. There are minor nits that can
be fixed during the RFC editor phase. There are also two notes for the editor.
Both notes refer to the Ethertype value which should be given with the
acceptance of this document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The document has been reviewed, commented and revised several times.
In addition it has undergone further review from congestion control experts,
the AD, the routing directorate and the Gen-ART reviewer.
(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. The XML has been verified by the schema both by software as well as by
ForCES model experts.
(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.
The Document Shepherd has no concerns.
Regarding the congestion control applicability section, the authors have
satisfactory defined the applicability of this document to belong strictly to
Controlled Environment as per draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-10. In addition the
authors have provided suggestions to mitigate potential issues with congestion
traffic due to UDP usage. "the Inter-FE LFB MUST only be deployed within a
single
network (with a single network operator) or networks of an adjacent
set of cooperating network operators where traffic is managed to
avoid congestion"
Both the AD and the Gen-ART reviewer made a notice about the Ethertype which
was resolved using the proper IETF process for ethertypes within the text.
(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.
The authors have confirmed that there is no IPR disclosures.
(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?
While the WG no longer exists, before the shutting down of the WG, the WG was
solidly behind the document. The document was reviewed and there were some
discussions at the early stages of the document, which were addressed. At the
first Last Call, there was no issues reported, therefore it is the Shepherd's
view that the whole WG understood and agreed on the document.
The document underwent a second IETF last call after the wg was closed. Some
editorial changes were requested by Alia Atlas (AD) and Russ Housely (Gen-Art
reviewer), which will be address by the author prior to proceeding for
publication.
(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.
There are two nits.
1. A warning about weird spacing: '...putPort group...' which can be fixed at
the editing process of the document 2. 1 instance of lines with
non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs 3. A new reference has been added into the document
but was not in the reference list.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has been written by an expert and the XML has been validated by
the Document Shepherd.
(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 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 changes to 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 IANA considerations are very well defined.
The document does not make any protocol extensions.
The referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
There is only an update on an existing registry for a new entry to be added.
The new values are clearly defined.
(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 registries are 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.
The Document Shepherd has validated the XML code based on the ForCES XML schema.