Redundancy Mechanism for Inter-domain VPLS Service
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-07

Draft Title:  Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-04


(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?

standards Track as indicated in the title page header. 
The document was initially proposed as BCP, but after discussion with the AD it
was moved to Standards Track (see discussion in the History) for more reasoning.

(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:

In many existing Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) inter-domain
deployments (based on RFC 4762), pseudowire (PW) connectivity offers
no node redundancy, or offers node redundancy only with a single
domain.  This deployment approach incurs a high risk of service
interruption, since at least one domain will not offer PW node
redundancy.  This document describes an inter-domain VPLS solution
that provides PW node redundancy across domains.

    Working Group Summary:

  This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been discussed in
the working group through multiple iterations of the draft and its predecessor draft
(draft-liu-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy).  It has been essentially stable since
WG adoption in May 2013.  Prior to WG adoption the protocol operations in the
predecessor draft were removed, leaving the draft as a simple BCP on options for
configuring redundancy for inter-domain VPLS services.

    Document Quality:

    The document is short (11 pages in total) and to the point.

    Personnel:

    Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.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 has reviewed this document through multiple iterations -
having worked with the authors to reduce the scope of the document to that of a BCP
and then reviewed subsequent revisions for correctness.

(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.

(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?

Only one of those indicating support for the document in WG-LC was not a co-author. 
However nobody objected, and given that this is a BCP we're setting the bar lower
than we would for protocol documents.

(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
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Three lines with control characters found by ID nits.

(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.

(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.  There is one normative reference to an internet-draft (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13), but
that draft has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

(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 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 simply states that no IANA allocation is required for
this draft.  There are no new code points or registries defined in this document.

(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.

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd write-up says that this is BCP.  The draft and data-tracker status say Standards Track.
This needs to be clarified before it progresses.

[Ballot discuss]

I'm just a bit puzzled by this, since the ICCP draft says:
"The ICCP protocol is not intended to be applicable when the
redundancy group spans PE in different administrative
domains." Isn't that exactly what you're doing here?

Apologies if I've just misunderstood something.

[Ballot comment]
It would be nice if this document contained a clear definition of what is meant by "node redundancy".  I think this is referring to PE nodes, but walking back to RFC 3985 I don't find a definition for that term, but as I progress through later RFCs I start to see "PE device" and later "PE node."  I suspect that this is a well-understood term of art, but for the sake of readers who are trying to find their way through these documents for the first time it would help to make that clear.  This stuck out for me because I at first interpreted "node" in the usual way that we use it in IETF protocols, and that definition of "node" doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of this document.

I'm not in love with the sketchiness of the solution to state flapping described in section 7, but I assume that people who know more about this than I are satisfied with it, so I will say no more on the subject.

[Ballot comment]
Section 7:
"In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs.
  The two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a well managed and
  highly monitored network.  This should be ensured by the operator."

I understand what is meant here, but it might be good to be a bit more specific about the desired monitoring given recent discussions and RFCs about pervasive monitoring. I would suggest something like:

"In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs.
  The two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a network that is well managed and
  whose service levels and availability are highly monitored.  This should be ensured by the operator."

Section 9:

s/author/authors/
(I assume.)

[Ballot comment]
Section 7:
"In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs.
  The two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a well managed and
  highly monitored network.  This should be ensured by the operator."

I understand what is meant here, but it might be good to be a bit more specific about the desired monitoring given recent discussions and RFCs about pervasive monitoring. I would suggest something like:

"In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs.
  The two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a network that is well managed and
  whose service levels and availability are highly monitored.  This should be ensured by the operator."

Draft Title:  Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-04


(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?

BCP - as indicated in the title page header.  This is the proper type of RFC as this
document defines no new protocol but simply defines use cases for inter-domain VPLS
redundancy and makes recommendations as to how to configure the PEs at the
domain borders.


(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:

In many existing Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) inter-domain
deployments (based on RFC 4762), pseudowire (PW) connectivity offers
no node redundancy, or offers node redundancy only with a single
domain.  This deployment approach incurs a high risk of service
interruption, since at least one domain will not offer PW node
redundancy.  This document describes an inter-domain VPLS solution
that provides PW node redundancy across domains.

    Working Group Summary:

  This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been discussed in
the working group through multiple iterations of the draft and its predecessor draft
(draft-liu-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy).  It has been essentially stable since
WG adoption in May 2013.  Prior to WG adoption the protocol operations in the
predecessor draft were removed, leaving the draft as a simple BCP on options for
configuring redundancy for inter-domain VPLS services.

    Document Quality:

    The document is short (11 pages in total) and to the point.

    Personnel:

    Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.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 has reviewed this document through multiple iterations -
having worked with the authors to reduce the scope of the document to that of a BCP
and then reviewed subsequent revisions for correctness.

(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.

(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?

Only one of those indicating support for the document in WG-LC was not a co-author. 
However nobody objected, and given that this is a BCP we're setting the bar lower
than we would for protocol documents.

(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
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Three lines with control characters found by ID nits.

(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.

(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.  There is one normative reference to an internet-draft (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13), but
that draft has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

(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 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 simply states that no IANA allocation is required for
this draft.  There are no new code points or registries defined in this document.

(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.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

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:  (Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain'
  as Best Current
Practice

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 2014-04-24. 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

  In many existing Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) deployments based
  on RFC 4762, inter-domain connectivity has been deployed without node
  redundancy, or with node redundancy in a single domain.  This
  document describes a solution for inter-domain VPLS based on RFC 4762
  with node and link redundancy in both domains.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy/ballot/


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

Additional note sent to authors
====
Hi,

I just want to add to these comments that the Security AD's review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp reads...

> The
> security model relies upon physical security with some (not great)
> provisions for authentication and access controls (address filtering,
> anti-spoofing, MD5 authentication).  Monitoring provides the ability to
> catch a problem if a security breach arises s was described in the
> response to the SecDir review.  Our threat models and understanding of
> them continues to evolve with service providers being a major target, as
> well as administrators.  Stronger authentication options and session
> encryption should be considered if a redesign as suggested in other IESG
> reviews is done.

This suggests that your work should not simply lean on the security considerations of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp because they will not be considered to be sufficient for wider deployment in the Internet.

Thanks,
Adrian

AD review
======
As is my usual practice, I am doing a review of your document as AD to
support the publication request from the WG chairs.  Thanks to Lizhong
for answering my early questions. I understand the intention of the
document and have a number of updates that I think you need to make to
improve the quality and direction of the work.

FWIW I disagree with Lizhong that this is not a protocol specification.
This document specifically gives instructions of process that an
implementation has to follow (look at Section 5.3) and those procedures
will change what messages the implementation sends. That means that the
text changes what happens on the wire. So, although there are no bits
and bytes changes, this is a protocol specification.

I have put the document into "Revised I-D Needed" state. When I see a
new revision, I'll move it forward. In the meantime, you should feel
free to debate any of these points with me if you disagree.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

==========                             

It would be really nice to fix idnits

---

Please check the text for acronyms that have not been expanded.

---

Several places in the text (but not the boilerplate) please
s/draft/document/

---

I can't see how this is a BCP. I realise that RFC 2026 section 5 is not
really clearly written, but this is a technical spec that describes how
to build a particular function in the network. Standards Track would be
just fine (even though there are no bits and bytes defined) because you
are defining procedures (using 2119 language) that an implementation has
to perform to make this function work (i.e., interoperate).

---

Section 1

Please give a little more information about what the "solution" is. You
don't need to go into full detail, but you do need to give some
overview. Things I'd like to see covered...
- motivation is to provide service protection mechanisms in the event of
  edge node failure
- basic mechanism is to provide edge node redundancy
- solution is dependent on the use of ICCP (with reference) to
  coordinate between redundant edge nodes
- no changes to any protocol message formats are needed for this
  solution and no new protocol options are defined
- this solution is a description of how existing protocol building
  blocks may be deployed to achieve the desired function, but also
  defines implementation behavior necessary for the function to work.

---

Section 4

3/PE4/PE5/PE6 should read PE3/PE4/PE5/PE6

---

The figures in Section 4 use "RG" but this term is not introduced until
Section 5.

---

Figure 2 might usefully be redrawn to show how PW3 and PW4 attach to the
PEs.

---

Section 5 says

  For the inter-domain four-PW scenario,
  it is required for PEs to ensure that the same mode is supported on
  the two ICCP peers in the same redundancy group (RG).

But you don't say how this is achieved.

---

Section 5.2

  Before
  deploying this inter-domain VPLS, the operators MUST negotiate to
  configure same PW high/low priority at two PW end-points.

How do they do this?

---

Section 5.3

  In this use case, there are generally three options

So, sometimes two options and sometimes four options? :-)
Delete "generally", but also make clear what the three options are.

---

Section 5.3

  support of 'request switchover' bit is required

It would have helped me if this had used the same name as in RFC 6870
(Request Switchover status bit) and had included a reference to RFC
6870.

---

Section 6

There seem to be some independent actions needed (operator negotiation,
setting of mode). Are these security vulnerabilities?

ICCP is being run on the Internet and not in a chassis. Does that make a
difference to the security model?

Question sent to authors et al.
=======

As is my usual practice, I am doing a review of your document as AD to
support the publication request from the WG chairs. I'll come back with
further details, but for the moment I have one high level question about
the intended status of this document.

I am pretty sure that it is not your intention that this is a protocol
specification.  The advice you are giving is about how to use existing
building blocks to make a deployment, and the description as a BCP seem
to support this.

However, you describe the contents as a "solution" and there seem to be
"changes" to an ICCP implementation that are needed to make this work.
Section 5.1 seems to suggest that there are some changes needed to get
the ICCP implementation on the PEs to do the right thing to make this
deployment possible.  This seems to be consistent with your use of RFC
2119 language.

Similarly, you describe the way that RFC 6870 procedures are enhanced.

The implication, therefore, is that if you take existing implementations
off the shelf you cannot build this deployment. You need special
modifications to make it work. Doesn't that make this a protocol
specification (even if rather a simple one)?

On the other hand, I think a lot of the description (using "should"
etc.) in Section 5 is describing the proper behavior of an ICCP
implementation and needs to be phrased as "will (according to [ICCP])".

So, I am a bit confused about what this document is trying to do. Maybe
that confusion can be cleared by answering:
- Can existing, off-the-shelf implementations of VPLS and ICCP be used
  to perform this function?
- Are there existing deployments of this function?

Thanks in advance,
Adrian

Draft Title:  Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-04


(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?

BCP - as indicated in the title page header.  This is the proper type of RFC as this
document defines no new protocol but simply defines use cases for inter-domain VPLS
redundancy and makes recommendations as to how to configure the PEs at the
domain borders.


(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:

    In many VPLS deployments based on RFC4762, inter-domain connectivity has
been deployed without node redundancy, or with node redundancy in a single domain. 
This document describes a solution for inter-domain VPLS based on RFC4762 with
node and link redundancy in both domains.

    Working Group Summary:

  This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been discussed in
the working group through multiple iterations of the draft and its predecessor draft
(draft-liu-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy).  It has been essentially stable since
WG adoption in May 2013.  Prior to WG adoption the protocol operations in the
predecessor draft were removed, leaving the draft as a simple BCP on options for
configuring redundancy for inter-domain VPLS services.

    Document Quality:

    The document is short (10 pages in total) and to the point.

    Personnel:

    Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.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 has reviewed this document through multiple iterations -
having worked with the authors to reduce the scope of the document to that of a BCP
and then reviewed subsequent revisions for correctness.

(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.

(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?

Only one of those indicating support for the document in WG-LC was not a co-author. 
However nobody objected, and given that this is a BCP we're setting the bar lower
than we would for protocol documents.

(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
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Three lines with control characters found by ID nits.

(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.

(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.  There is one normative reference to an internet-draft (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13), but
that draft has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

(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 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 simply states that no IANA allocation is required for
this draft.  There are no new code points or registries defined in this document.

(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:  Redundancy provisioning for VPLS Inter-domain
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-04


(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?

BCP - as indicated in the title page header.  This is the proper type of RFC as this document defines no new protocol but simply defines use cases for inter-domain VPLS redundancy and makes recommendations as to how to configure the PEs at the domain borders.


(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:

    In many VPLS deployments based on RFC4762, inter-domain connectivity has been deployed without node redundancy, or with node redundancy in a single domain.  This document describes a solution for inter-domain VPLS based on RFC4762 with node and link redundancy in both domains.

    Working Group Summary:

  This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been discussed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft and its predecessor draft (draft-liu-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy).  It has been essentially stable since WG adoption in May 2013.  Prior to WG adoption the protocol operations in the predecessor draft were removed, leaving the draft as a simple BCP on options for configuring redundancy for inter-domain VPLS services.

    Document Quality:

    The document is short (10 pages in total) and to the point.

    Personnel:

    Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.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 has reviewed this document through multiple iterations - having worked with the authors to reduce the scope of the document to that of a BCP and then reviewed subsequent revisions for correctness.


(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.


(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?

Only one of those indicating support for the document in WG-LC was not a co-author.  However nobody objected, and given that this is a BCP we're setting the bar lower than we would for protocol documents.


(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Three lines with control characters found by ID nits.


(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.


(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.  There is one normative reference to an internet-draft (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13), but that draft has been submitted to the IESG for publication.


(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 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 simply states that no IANA allocation is required for this draft.  There are no new code points or registries defined in this document.


(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.