Draft Title: IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS)
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-12.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?
After a prolonged period when this was presented as Informational, interest waned and progress became very slow. This document is now presented as a record of discussion that happened in the working group, and so Historic is appropriate.
(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:
A Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [VPLS] is used to interconnect systems across
a wide-area or metropolitan-area network, making it appear that they are on a private
LAN. The systems which are interconnected may themselves be LAN switches. If,
however, they are IP hosts or IP routers, certain simplifications to the operation of the
VPLS are possible. We call this simplified type of VPLS an "IP-only LAN Service"
(IPLS). In an IPLS, as in a VPLS, LAN interfaces are run in promiscuous mode, and
frames are forwarded based on their destination MAC addresses. However, the
maintenance of the MAC forwarding tables is done via signaling, rather than via the
MAC address learning procedures specified in [IEEE 802.1D]. This draft specifies the
protocol extensions and procedures for support of the IPLS service.
Working Group Summary:
This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been reviewed in
the working group through multiple iterations of the draft. It is considered to be an
informational draft, with the last few iterations of the draft now cleaning up references.
The authors There was considerable debate during and after the WG last call which
resulted in new revisions being issued to resolve various comments.
The document provides a clear and concise set of requirements for IPLS - broken
down into different requirement areas. As a requirements draft there is no protocol
Document Shepherd: Andrew McLachlan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Area Director: Adrian Farrel (email@example.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 has reviewed the mailing archives and the done a full
review of the last 4 versions of the drafts. The last major revision of the draft was -09
with the subsequent versions -10 until the current -12 focusing on tidying up grammar
(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
(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.
(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 document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous
IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft, and the consensus appears
to be that it is ready to move to RFC.
(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.)
(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.
Nit found for “couldn't find a document date in the document”. Looking to RFC
Editors to help resolve this. On the matter of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work,
all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
(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
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
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).
The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to
create and populate the new Relative Location Parameters 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.
No 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.