BGP-Signaled End-System IP/VPNs
draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-06

It has been over 6 months since I last heard form the authors.  Several reviews have been provided and are outstanding.

I'm returning this document to the WG.

AD Review:

I just finished reading this document.  Please see my comments below.  There are a couple of Major issues (below) that I would like to see addressed before moving this document forward. 

Along with those, there are some other related issues that can be worked on in parallel:

IANA assignment of value 13 corresponding to "MPLS in UDP Encapsulation".  There's an Errata filed (and Verified) against RFC 7510 [1] which points at that document as the reference (an additional one) for the code point.  That makes more sense to me than adding text to this document.  I'll take the action to follow up with IANA — the goal being to take the reference out of this document. 

The Shepherd's write-up mentions that an XML review may be relevant.  I'll look at the ART Area Directorate and request the review as appropriate.

Related to the above is the reference to XEP-0060, which may be ok because it is a "Draft Standard" (and not considered a downref).  I'll check with the ART ADs as well to make sure.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7510


Major:

(1) Section 4. (Virtual network end-points) talks about the use of VRRP, I have several comments/questions related to that.

- "…should be answered using a virtual MAC address which SHOULD be the same across all VPN Forwarders in a specific deployment.  This virtual MAC address SHALL default to the VRRP [RFC5798] virtual router MAC address for Virtual Router Identifier (VRID) 1."  There's a normative language conflict in this piece of text: if the virtual MAC address has to be ("SHALL") "the VRRP…", then there can't be cases ("SHOULD") where a different one is used.

- Even though the text above mandates that a VRRP-related address be used, the use of VRRP is not mandatory even in redundant cases, is that correct?  There's a piece of text that says that "It is desirable to use VRRP…"  "Desirable" is not even close to mandatory.  The last 2 paragraphs in the Section seems to assume that VRRP is in use.  Please clarify.

- What happens if a different redundancy mechanism is used instead of VRRP?  Are there any issues with using the mandated default virtual MAC address?  How would the master/backup relationship be handled?  Same questions if there are multiple VRIDs.

- RFC5798 reads: "The mapping between the VRID and its IPvX address(es) must be coordinated among all VRRP routers on a LAN.  There is no restriction against reusing a VRID with a different address mapping on different LANs…"  That seems to mean to me that the MAC address mapping could be something unexpected.  You may want to be more prescriptive and explicitly point to the addresses in Section 7.3.

(2) Section 6. (XMPP signaling protocol). 

- I think there's a contradiction in the logic in this text from the 5th paragraph: "…it MAY choose to subscribe to VPN routing information from each End-System Route Server.  In this latter case the Forwarder is responsible for selecting which Route Server is authoritative for a specific forwarding entry…The VPN Forwarder is expected to select the entry that it deems as more recent for positive updates.  It SHOULD NOT consider a forwarding entry to be withdrawn unless it is withdrawn by both Route Servers."

-- The text says that the Forwarder will select an authoritative Route Server, but then it puts some conditions on the selection/consideration which may not be in line with the authoritative server.

- Related to the point above..  "When multiple possible routes exist for a given VPN IP address within a VRF it is the responsibility of the Route Server to select the best path to advertise to the VPN Forwarders."  How?  Are there cases where the selection would be between routing information learned through XMPP and BGP? 
The text does say that the "criteria used for multipath selection is outside the scope of this document but SHOULD be consistent between the Route Servers within an administrative domain".  I think that in the non-multipath case (where a single best path is selected), there should be additional guidance, specially if the mixed (XMPP/BGP) cases exist.

- Why isn't the selection criteria defined for VPN Forwarders applicable to the Route Servers?

Minor:

(1) Consistency in the terminology

- Section 4. (Virtual network end-points) uses the term "virtual network interface" several times; is this meant to be the same as the "Virtual Interface" from Section 1.1. (Terminology)?  If so, please be consistent.  If not, please clarify the difference.
- Section 1.1 defines "VPN Forwarder", but in several places (Section 5, for example) the term "Forwarder" is used (w/out "VPN").  Given the context, I can guess it is the same thing..but please be consistent.

(2) Section 5. (VPN Forwarder)
- This section says that the "VPN forwarding functionality…may be implemented by an external system, typically located as close as possible to the end-system itself."  Later, when describing how the virtual interface is associated with a VRF, if the VPN forwarder is external, then "the association is performed using the MAC address…and….1Q tag that identifies the virtual interface…".  What I want to point at here is that there are requirements associated with "as close as possible" so that the MAC address, etc. are available..  Maybe this is implicit from the scenario, but might be nice to explicitly define.
- "The 20-bit label which is associated with a virtual interface is of local significance only and SHOULD be allocated by the VPN Forwarder."  I think that "SHOULD" should be "should".  Is there any specific reason for it to be normative?

(3) Section 6. (XMPP signaling protocol)  Please expand/explain "JID" on first use.

(4) Section 7. (End-System Route Server behavior)  "It is assumed that the End-System Route Servers have information regarding the mapping between the tuple…and BGP Route Targets…"  In this case the assumption is really a requirement, right?  If it is, then please word it appropriately (should/SHOULD/must/MUST/…).

(5) Section 8. (Operational Model)  I don't understand what this means: "As a result, that is the address it uses as the destination MAC address in packets it originates.  This MAC address is not present on the encapsulated packet."  The MAC address is used as the destination, but it is not on the packet..??

(6) References.
- Please add references for the following:
"…SHOULD use TLS with mutual authentication"
"BGP sessions SHOULD be authenticated"
- These references should be Informative: [RFC4456], [RFC7510]

Nits:

(1) Some substitutions
s/This scenario can be found in both enterprise campus networks, branch offices and data centers./This scenario can be found in enterprise campus networks, branch offices and data centers.
s/through an session close/through a session close
s/procedure define in/procedure defined in
s/This Pub-Sub nodes/These Pub-Sub nodes
s/RS1 and RS2 our example/RS1 and RS2 in our example
s/mimic the encapsulated used/mimic the encapsulation used
s/draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp/RFC 7510

(2) Section 3. (Applicability of BGP IP VPNs)
Comparison with other solutions is not necessary in this document.  I would take this sentence out: "This provides an efficient mechanism to address IP mobility requirements as compared to methods that depend on a (cached) mapping request from the end-systems."
For consistency s/VPN forwarding elements/VPN Forwarder

After a long delay in processing IETF last call comments, a new revision is ready and as far as the shepherd understands it addresses IETF last call comments.
Chairs have agreed that an additional Working Group Last Call is not required.

(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?

  Targeted RFC type is "Standard Track", as indicated in the title page header.
  This is appropriate given the content of the document which specifies a new
  protocol and corresponding 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:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes a solution in which the control plane
  protocol specified in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs [RFC4364] is used to provide a
  Virtual Network service to end-systems.  These end-systems may be
  used to provide network services or may directly host end-to-end
  applications.

Working Group Summary:

  No particular controversy. No-one expressed oneself against adoption, and there was
  large support in favor. After adoption, nothing beyond the usual comments/revision
  cycle.

Document Quality:

  The document is well-written, with concision and a good balance between
  specification language and practical examples.

  One opensource implementation of the protocol is known (www.opencontrail.org).
  Note that this is an implementation of an earlier version of the specs, in the process
  of being updated.

Personnel:

  Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 did a thorough review which lead to multiple changes (in
  particular to remove a dependency to stalled specifications of the XMMP Standards
  Foundation).

  The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed?

  No particular concern, in particular because this document already went through 
  an IETF last call after which some clarifications were brought to the document.

(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.

  Although I don't have any specific concern, an XML review could be relevant as
  these XMPP-based specifications makes an extensive use of XML. No such review
  did take place yet.

(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.

  Given ongoing work in the NVO3 working group, calling for adoption in l3vpn was not
  done without validation with the Responsible AD (Stewart Bryant) and was finally
  done considering the fact that the use cases for these specifications include, but are
  not limited to, datacenter use cases.

  Additionally, it is important to note that this document already went through 
  an IETF last call during which one person (Benson Schliesser) commented on the draft,
  and then started working with the editor on addressing these.  It took some time for a
  revision to be published, but as far as the shepherd understands, the comments raised
  during this first IETF last call are now resolved in -05.

(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, all authors confirmed so.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No IPR disclosure.

(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 basis for adoption was a large consensus expressed by a lot of people including
  vendors and operators, and no voice expressed against adoption.

(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.

  * It will make things a lot easier if the IP addresses used as examples are *not* in
    the RFC1918 range, but instead uses blocks proposed in RFC5735 (192.0.2.x,
    198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  The XML namespace URN choice was reviewed by the corresponding IANA expert (jari.urpalainen@nsn.com).

(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?

  The document has a normative reference to XEP-0060 of the XMPP Standards
  Foundation, which is of "Draft Standard" status.  Whether or not this is sufficient or
  not is unknown to me.

(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.

  See above on XEP-0060.

(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 change of status of any existing RFC.)

(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).

          This document defines a URN namespace used to encode L3VPN Unicast
          routing information compliant with the registration procedure define
  in [RFC3688].

    The above and the choice of URN was discussed with the IANA expert on the
    topic (jari.urpalainen@nsn.com).

(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.

  (No IANA action is required by this document.)

(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.

  The XML Schema in section 11 validates properly.

  $ xmllint --noout --schema XMLSchema.xsd end-system-schema-04.xml
        end-system-schema-04.xml validates

It has been about a year since this draft was last updated.  Any issues had been resolved late last year (2014), but so far the authors haven't produced an update even after multiple reminders.  It looks like there's just no interest.  I'm then returning this document to the WG.

Notification list changed to l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org, thomas.morin@rd.francetelecom.com, draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system.all@tools.ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org, bess-chairs@tools.ietf.org, bess@ietf.org from l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org, thomas.morin@rd.francetelecom.com, draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system.all@tools.ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org, bess-chair@tools.ietf.org, bess@ietf.org

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has a question about the IANA Considerations section of this document.

Previously, an early assignment has been made to support this draft. The original request for an assignment is below:


Contact Name:
Thomas Morin

Contact Email:
thomas.morin@orange.com

Type of Assignment:
Assignement of a BGP parameter in a FCFS registry.

Registry:
BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types

See: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters

Description:
Needed for draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system, to allow the use of an MPLS-over-UDP encapsulation as specified in draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp .

No value has been proposed yet, next available value 13 would be fine.

Additional Info:
draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system


IANA Question --> The IANA Considerations section said "This document has no IANA actions."  and, as a result, the assignment made through the request above would not be made permanent. Is this the author's intent? If not, could the draft be revised to indicate that the assignment made based on the request above be changed from an initial assignment to a permanent assignment.


Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs.) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled Services WG (bess)
to consider the following document:
- 'BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs.'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2014-12-08. 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.

This document contains a normative Downref to RFC 1027

Abstract

  This document describes a solution in which the control plane
  protocol specified in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs is used to provide a Virtual
  Network service to end-systems.  These end-systems may be used to
  provide network services or may directly host end-to-end
  applications.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system/ballot/


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

(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?

  Targeted RFC type is "Standard Track", as indicated in the title page header.
  This is appropriate given the content of the document which specifies a new
  protocol and corresponding 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:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes a solution in which the control plane
  protocol specified in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs [RFC4364] is used to provide a
  Virtual Network service to end-systems.  These end-systems may be
  used to provide network services or may directly host end-to-end
  applications.

Working Group Summary:

  No particular controversy. No-one expressed oneself against adoption, and there was
  large support in favor. After adoption, nothing beyond the usual comments/revision
  cycle.

Document Quality:

  The document is well-written, with concision and a good balance between
  specification language and practical examples.

  One opensource implementation of the protocol is known (www.opencontrail.org).
  Note that this is an implementation of an earlier version of the specs, in the process
  of being updated.

Personnel:

  Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 did a thorough review which lead to multiple changes (in
  particular to remove a dependency to stalled specifications of the XMMP Standards
  Foundation).

  The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed?

  No particular concern.

(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.

  Although I don't have any specific concern, an XML review could be relevant as
  these XMPP-based specifications makes an extensive use of XML. No such review
  did take place yet.

(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.

  Given ongoing work in the NVO3 working group, calling for adoption in l3vpn was not
  done without validation with the Responsible AD (Stewart Bryant) and was finally
  done considering the fact that the use cases for these specifications include, but are
  not limited to, datacenter use cases.

(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, all authors confirmed so.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No IPR disclosure.

(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 basis for adoption was a large consensus expressed by a lot of people including
  vendors and operators, and no voice expressed against adoption.

(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.

  * It will make things a lot easier if the IP addresses used as examples are *not* in
    the RFC1918 range, but instead uses blocks proposed in RFC5735 (192.0.2.x,
    198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  N/A.

(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?

  The document has a normative reference to XEP-0060 of the XMPP Standards
  Foundation, which is of "Draft Standard" status.  Whether or not this is sufficient or
  not is unknown to me.

(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.

  See above on XEP-0060.

  There is a normative Downref to RFC 1027

(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 change of status of any existing RFC.)

(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).

  (No IANA action is required by 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.

  (No IANA action is required by this document.)

(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.

  The XML Schema in section 11 validates properly.

  $ xmllint --noout --schema XMLSchema.xsd end-system-schema-04.xml
        end-system-schema-04.xml validates

(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?

  Targeted RFC type is "Standard Track", as indicated in the title page header.
  This is appropriate given the content of the document which specifies a new
  protocol and corresponding 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:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes a solution in which the control plane
  protocol specified in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs [RFC4364] is used to provide a
  Virtual Network service to end-systems.  These end-systems may be
  used to provide network services or may directly host end-to-end
  applications.

Working Group Summary:

  No particular controversy. No-one expressed oneself against adoption, and there was large support in favor. After adoption, nothing beyond the usual comments/revision cycle.

Document Quality:

  The document is well-written, with concision and a good balance between
  specification language and practical examples.

  One opensource implementation of the protocol is known (www.opencontrail.org). Note that this is an implementation of an earlier version
  of the specs, in the process of being updated.

Personnel:

  Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd.
  Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 did a thorough review which lead to multiple changes (in particular to remove a dependency to stalled specifications of the XMMP Standards Fundation).

The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No particular concern.



(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.

Although I don't have any specific concern, an XML review could be relevant as these XMPP-based specifications makes an extensive use of XML. No such review did take place yet.



(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.

Given ongoing work in the NVO3 working group, calling for adoption in l3vpn was not done without validation with the Responsible AD (Stewart Bryant) and was finally done considering the fact that the use cases for these specifications include, but are not limited to, datacenter use cases.



(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, all authors confirmed so.



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosure.



(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 basis for adoption was a large consensus expressed by a lot of people including vendors and operators, and no voice expressed against adoption.



(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.


* It will make things a lot easier if the IP addresses used as examples are *not* in the RFC1918 range, but instead uses blocks proposed in RFC5735 (192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x).


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.



(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?

The document has a normative reference to XEP-0060 of the XMPP Standards Foundation, which is of "Draft Standard" status.  Whether or not this is sufficient or not is unknown to me.


(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.

See above on XEP-0060.


(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 change of status of any existing RFC.)



(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).

(No IANA action is required by 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.

(No IANA action is required by this document.)



(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.

The XML Schema in section 11  validates properly.

$ xmllint --noout --schema XMLSchema.xsd end-system-schema-04.xml
end-system-schema-04.xml validates