As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
This document is targeting publication as a Standards track RFC.
It is the proper type of RFC since it provides updates to RFC 6834 Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning, which was an experimental document.
The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header.
(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:
The document proposes a map versioning mechanism for the LISP mapping system to
track the EID-locator bindings. The mechanism is based on versioning the
bindings and also carrying the version in LISP hear for LISP encapsulated
packets. The proposal allows tunnel end point to inform the other of the
version of mapping used and indirectly signaling changes in the mapping.
The proposed mechanism is optional and transparent for nodes not implementing
the feature. This document obsoletes the RFC6834.
Working Group Summary:
The document was initially written in May 2018 and has mostly the same text as
RFC6834. The changes do not impact the clarity of the document and are: 1.
Clarification that the mechanism is optional 2. Updated section 8.4 for
clarification 3. Removal of redundant section 9 in RFC6834 4. Updated
the security section inline with the main specs. 5. Updated section 11 in
RFC6834 for deployment considerations . 6. Removal of Appendix A of
RFC6834. The very small delay was discussed and there was no objection in the
working group and support to go rapidly in wg last call.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other
expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
The document is a respin from the RFC6438 and does not have significant changes
except for few parts that made it coherent with the main specs (namely 6830bis
and 6833bis).
There are at least two known implementations of the proposed mechanism (RFC6438)
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Padma Pillay-Esnault <Padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
(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.
I checked the IDnits and the document had no warnings to be solved.
The text is sufficiently clear and understandable.
I have checked the mailing list and meeting minutes and publication WG
consensus has been reached appropriately.
I had a few suggestions on the draft for readability and nits.
Section 1
<PPE> consider rephrasing this sentence. Suggestion below
Old:
A change in an EID-to-RLOC mapping
can be a change in the RLOCs set, by adding or removing one or more
RLOCs, but it can also be a change in the priority or weight of one
or more RLOCs.
New:
A change in an EID-to-RLOC mapping can be a modification in the RLOCs set such
as addition, removal, or change in priority or weight of one or more RLOCs.
Section 3
Map-Version number: An unsigned 12-bit integer is assigned to an
EID-to-RLOC mapping, not including the value 0 (0x000).
<PPE> Suggestion below
Old: not including
New : excluding
Section 5.2
2. The packet arrives with a Source Map-Version number greater
(i.e., newer) than the one stored in the local EID-to-RLOC Map-
Cache. This means that the ETR has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
a mapping that is stale and needs to be updated. A Map-Request
<PPE>
Old: This means that the ETR has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
a mapping that is stale and needs to be updated.
New: This means that the ETR has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
a stale mapping and needs to be updated.
Section 8.4.
In the current LISP specifications, the set of RLOCs must always be
maintained ordered and consistent with the content of the Loc Status
Bits ([I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]). . When a new RLOC is added to a
<PPE> Punctuation to be fixed
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
As the document shepherd I have no concerns.
(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.
I do not think that an additional specific review is needed.
(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.
I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.
(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 authors have been polled for IPR.
(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 disclosures have been filed.
(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?
There has been clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a
whole understands and agrees with it.
(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.)
Nobody showed discontent nor threatened an appeal.
(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.
The ID nits did not show any errors, flaws or warnings.
idnits 2.16.05
tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-08.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (March 24, 2021) is 115 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references are clearly identified as 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?
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress),
November 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), November
2020.
There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis, one to
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, but these documents are sitting in the RFC Editor
queue waiting for this document (among others)
(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 downward normative references once the docs in (14) are published
with the standards track status.
(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.
This document is going to obsolete RFC6834, as it is clearly stated in the
head, abstract, and Introduction of the document (as requested by the IETF
process).
(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 8126).
The document does not have IANA actions required.
(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 expert review is required.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no
validation and/or check has been performed.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
The document does not contain a Yang Module.