Advertising Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Discriminators in the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)
draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-05

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the Message Type AVP (Attribute Type 0) Values subregistry of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP" registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters/

a single new value is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: S-BFD Target Discriminator ID
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ignacio.goyret@nokia.com, l2tpext@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org, "Ignacio Goyret" , l2tpext-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Advertising S-BFD Discriminators in L2TPv3) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
Extensions WG (l2tpext) to consider the following document:
- 'Advertising S-BFD Discriminators in L2TPv3'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a new AVP that allows L2TP Control Connection
  Endpoints (LCCEs) to advertise one or more Seamless BFD (S-BFD)
  Discriminator values using L2TPv3.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

: 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.


Shepherd writeup for:

              Advertising S-BFD Discriminators in L2TPv3
              draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-01.txt

: (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 intended status is Proposed Standard in the Standards Track,
  as 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 defines a new L2TP AVP for advertising one or more
  Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Discriminators
  using the L2TPv3 Control Protocol.

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?

    The WG process for this document has been smooth and without any
    controversies.


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, 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 no known implementations at the moment. However,
    several vendors have expressed they plan to implement it.

    The document was also reviewed on the BFG and PALS WG.


Personnel

  Ignacio Goyret is the Document Shepherd, Deborah Brungard 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 document shepherd has reviewed the draft numerous times, before adoption,
  during WG progress, and during and after WG LC, and finds that it is ready
  to advance to the IESG. No issues were raised.


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

  No concerns. The document is simple and straightforward.


: (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 such reviews are needed.

: (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 concerns.

: (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. Each author and contributor provided an IPR disclosure confirmation:

  "Vengada Prasad Govindan"  answered on 12 Jun 2015:
    I am not aware of any IPR relevant to this document.

  "Carlos Pignataro"  answered on 9 Jun 2015:
    I am not aware of any IPR relevant 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
: disclosures.

  No.

: (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? 

  The WG consensus behind this document has been stable and adequate.

: (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.

  No errors were found on the ID nits check.

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

  N/A

: (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?

  Yes. draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base is being reviewed on the BFD WG
  and it will advance on that WG.

: (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.

: (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 section is brief but well-formed. The only assignment
  required is from a well established registry.


: (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.

  N/A