Draft Title: Requirements for Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF)Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree)
Support in L2VPN
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-05
(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 requirements 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 L2VPN requirements for a Metro Ethernet Forum
services, known as the E-Tree services. An E-Tree services is defined by a
one or more roots and one or more leaves. Roots can send traffic to other
roots and leaves and received traffic from other roots and leaves. Leaves
can only receive traffic from roots and send traffic to roots. E-Tree
requirements are not satisfied by existing L2VPN solution.
Working Group Summary:
This document is an L2VPN Working Group document. It has gone through few
iterations that addressed few comments received from the Working group and
comments received the WG chairs. The draft was generalized from VPLS to
L2VPN to allow for a potentially wider solution set, namely including
E-VPN. The draft also has a substantial number of authors and contributors
from the Working Group. The draft had good support when it was adopted as
a WG draft. However when the draft was last called, no feedback was
received, maybe due to the nature of the draft and the fact that there are
several authors and contributors to the draft already from the WG. Upon
last review by the WG chairs of the draft and feedback to the authors, the
authors updated the draft addressing the chairs' comments, mainly
modifying the author list and moving some to contributors, performing few
edits, and removing the appendix on use cases as it did not include
requirements. The use cases are part of another framework draft.
Document Quality:
The document has good quality. It is clear on the technical content and
written with good English and layout. There may be an edit or so needed
that may be taken up during the RFC edits.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com)
Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)
(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 2 and version 4, and
provided comments to the authors that were addressed in version 3 and last in
version 5, as described earlier.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No due to the nature of the document, and several authors and contributors some
of whom are also working on the solution. The draft was last called but no
feedback comments were received as explained earlier.
(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 few individuals that had authored and
contributed to the draft. Few more supported the adoption of this draft as a
Working Group draft.
(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.
(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 requirements 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.