A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network
draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-10

[Ballot comment]

I believe that its about time that text like sections 5 and 6
identified the lack of confidentiality mechanisms as a gap that
needs to be filled. Which could done be via MACsec or
(self-promotion alert!) MPLS with opportunistic security, or
something else. Can you justify (given BCP188) why this is not
a gap that's worth a look? This isn't a discuss since I'd be
happy to raise such on a protocol spec if warranted, but also
because it'd be wrong to expect you to re-do all L2VPN (by
adding a "real" P:-) in this draft.

[Ballot comment]
Could figure 1 be placed after the first paragraph of Section 3?  This would make it easier to look at the figure while reading the description that comes before and after the figure.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol
  Label Switching (MPLS) Network'
  as Informational RFC

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 2014-07-15. 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 describes an Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) solution framework
  for supporting the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) E-Tree service over a
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network. The objective is to
  provide a simple and effective approach to emulate E-Tree services
  in addition to Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) services on an existing MPLS
  network.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk/ballot/

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

AD Review
========

Authors,

I have conducted my usual AD review of your draft having received a
publication request. The purpose of the review is to catch significant
issues before the I-D advances to IETF last call and IESG evaluation.

This document seems fine to me and I only have three nits. I will start
the IETF last call and raise these nits as last call comments and you can
address them with any other comments you receive.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

Section 2.2 has

  An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and many Leaf ACs.

I suggest that "many" is not a necessary part of the definition
although it may be probable in deployments. For the definition I think
you need:

  An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least one Leaf AC.

---

Section 2.3.1 para 2

s/fame/frame/

---

Figure 1 shows two notations "E-Tree". The associated arrows do not
make it clear what is the extent of the E-tree since the top one and
the bottom one show different edge points. Can you tidy that up?

Draft Title:  Multicast in VPLS
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-06

(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?

Informational.

This is the proper type of RFC as this is a framework document.

(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 draft describes a framework for providing a Metro Ethernet Forum service,
  known as the Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) service, over an MPLS network. An E-Tree
  service is defined by one or more roots and one or more leaves. Roots can send
  traffic to other roots and leaves and receive traffic from other roots and leaves within
  the same service instance. Leaves can only receive traffic from roots and send traffic
  to roots in the same service instance. The draft describes a reference architecture
  model for E-Tree services over an MPLS network, describes use cases and calls out
  the gaps that need to be addressed in existing L2VPN solutions namely VPLS and
  EVPN.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is an L2VPN Working Group document. It has gone through few
  iterations and addressed quite few comments/input/edits from the WG chairs that
  resulted in draft version 4 that passed WG LC with many people supporting it.
  Versions 5 and 6 addressed some indicts.

Document Quality:

  The document has good quality. It is clear on the technical content and written with
  good English and layout. There are a couple of edits needed that can be taken up
  during the RFC edits.

Personnel:

  Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com)
  Area Director: Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk)

(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 did a full review of version 3 and version 4. All comments
that were provided on version 3 were addressed in version 4. In addition, versions 5
and 6 addressed some indicts.

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

No.

(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 specific 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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No. No IPR had been filed in reference to this draft.

(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 current draft is supported by several who responded to the last call. There were
no comments or objections from the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.

None.

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

No formal review required.

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

Yes.  The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document 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?

No - all normative references are to RFCs and other standard forums documentations
(IEEE and MEF).

(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 - all normative references are upward.

(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 - no impact on status of 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).

IANA is not applicable to this draft, as this is a framework draft.

(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.

None.

(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 sections written in a formal language.

Draft Title:  Multicast in VPLS
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-06

(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?

Informational.

This is the proper type of RFC as this is a framework document.

(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 draft describes a framework for providing a Metro Ethernet Forum service, known as the Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) service, over an MPLS network. An E-Tree service is defined by one or more roots and one or more leaves. Roots can send traffic to other roots and leaves and receive traffic from other roots and leaves within the same service instance. Leaves can only receive traffic from roots and send traffic to roots in the same service instance. The draft describes a reference architecture model for E-Tree services over an MPLS network, describes use cases and calls out the gaps that need to be addressed in existing L2VPN solutions namely VPLS and EVPN.

    Working Group Summary:

    This document is an L2VPN Working Group document. It has gone through few iterations and addressed quite few comments/input/edits from the WG chairs that resulted in draft version 4 that passed WG LC with many people supporting it. Versions 5 and 6 addressed some indicts.

    Document Quality:

    The document has good quality. It is clear on the technical content and written with good English and layout. There are a couple of edits needed that can be taken up during the RFC edits.

    Personnel:

    Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com)
    Area Director: Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk

(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 did a full review of version 3 and version 4. All comments that were provided on version 3 were addressed in version 4. In addition, versions 5 and 6 addressed some indicts.

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

No.

(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 specific 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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No. No IPR had been filed in reference to this draft.

(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 current draft is supported by several who responded to the last call. There were no comments or objections from the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.

None.

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

No formal review required.

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

Yes.  The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document 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?

No - all normative references are to RFCs and other standard forums documentations (IEEE and MEF).

(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 - all normative references are upward.

(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 - no impact on status of 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).

IANA is not applicable to this draft, as this is a framework draft.

(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.

None.

(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 sections written in a formal language.