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.