(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:
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
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
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.
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
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.)
(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 (email@example.com).
(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?
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
The above and the choice of URN was discussed with the IANA expert on the
(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