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:
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.
The document is short (11 pages in total) and to the point.
Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (email@example.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?
(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.
(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.)
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.