(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?
A Standard Track publication is requested, and the title page header mentions it.
This is the proper type for a document proposing and updating procedures.
(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:
Under certain conditions it is desirable for a BGP route reflector to
be able to modify the Route Target list of a VPN route that is
distributed by the route reflector, enabling the route reflector to
control how a route originated within one VRF is imported into other
VRFs. This technique works effectively as long as the VRF that
exports the route is not on the same PE as the VRF(s) that import the
route. However, due to the constraints of the BGP protocol, it does
not work if the two are on the same PE. This document describes a
modification to the BGP protocol allowing this technique to work when
the VRFs are on the same PE, allowing the technique to be used in a
standard manner throughout an autonomous system.
Working Group Summary:
Opposition to the proposal was initally expressed by one contributor, but there was
good support for adoption and no particular follow-up from that contributor.
The specs are clear and concise, and document a fairly straightforward optional
change to the BGP protocol procedures. The document was discussed in both l3vpn
and idr working groups. These specs have been implemented at least in Cisco's IOS
XR with field deployment.
Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.
(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 is ready for IESG review. The document shepherd has done a thorough
review of the document, a few minor editorial changes are suggested, that can be
integrated by authors in parallel with the IESG review.
(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 concern.
(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?
All authors confirmed during WGLC (in May 2014) that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
have already been filed.
(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?
10 to 20 people were involved, which is reasonable given that the use case is quite a
niche use case.
(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.
Only one nit raised by idnits.
-- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The
disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been
unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the
IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to
grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise,
the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal
Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more
The shepherd has taken the action of asking authors if they agree to grand these
rights and then remove the said disclaimer in the next draft revision.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Yes (allocation of a codepoint in a FCFS IANA registry: no review needed).
(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 such case.
(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 downward normative reference.
(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.
(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).
One new codepoint needed in an FCFS registry, properly explained in the IANA
section, and the codepoint has already been allocated by IANA.
No new 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.
(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.