(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