As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
It describes a protocol that is part of the L2VPN protocol suite.
(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 generic Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) solution is specified
for Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) services which uses VLANs to indicate
root or leaf traffic. A VPLS Provider Edge (PE) model is illustrated
as an example for the solution. In the solution, E-Tree VPLS PEs are
interconnected by PWs which carry the VLAN indicating the E-Tree
attribute, the MAC address based Ethernet forwarding engine and the
PW work in the same way as before. A signaling mechanism for E-Tree
capability and VLAN mapping negotiation is further described.
Working Group Summary
Progress through the working group was unremarkable until the end,
when some discussion arose around the dynamic reconfiguration of
the etree. It was determined that there was no requirement for
seamless dynamic reconfiguration, although there was a need to
be able to correct an incorrect configuration. Text was added to state
this constraint and to provide guidance on how to ensure that the
system automatically recovered to a state of correct operation in
There is at least two implementation of this protocol.
The Document Shepherd is Stewart Bryant.?
The Responsible Area Director is Deborah Brungard.
(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
I performed a line by line review, and requested a number of changes
which were made by the authors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. It has been reviewed by a number of experts in the area.
(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
(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
I am comfortable with this document.
(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.
The Chairs of L2VPN took this action on 25/May/2014 immediately before
WGLC in the L2VPN WG. There was no new IPR declared over and
above that which was previously declared.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
IPR has been filed, but not remarked about.
(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 L2VPN chair commented on a low level of comment, but the
given the history I think we should proceed with publishing.
(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
No nits found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
There are no downrefs.
(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. Not applicable.
(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 has already allocated the codepoints and the IANA section
and the registry entries match.
(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.