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?
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:
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
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.
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.
Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (email@example.com)
Area Director: Adrian Farrel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
(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?
(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.
(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?
(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.)
(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.
(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
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.
(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.