Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd

(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 draft is targeting Standard Track publication.
        It is the proper type of RFC since it extents the LISP data plane
  so to support multi-protocol encapsulation. Hence, it will extend
  what is defined in draft-ietf-lisp-6830bis, which just passed WG LC as
  well and is also Standard Track.

(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 describes an extension of the LISP Header so to
  enhance the LISP data plane so to support multi-protocol encapsulation.
  The main LISP specifications allow only IPv4 or IPv6 encapsulation.
  Such feature is achieve by allocating the last remaining reserved flag as
  the "next Protocol" bit. If set the flag indicates the presence of a 8 bit
  next protocol field. Next Protocol code-points are listed in a new IANA LISP

Working Group Summary:

          The document was first published in 2013, but because the WG was not
          chartered to work on multi-protocol support the document was left to
          expire. Things changed with the rechartering of the LISP WG, which
          now explicitly includes multi-protocol support. After the LISP WG
          concluded the bulk of the work on the bis documents, representing the
          basic LISP Standard Track specifications, the LISP-GPE document has
          been updated and the WG adopted it right away. Some technical
          discussion took place concerning the way LISP-GPE boxes have to
          interoperate with legacy LISP boxes, but the WG always showed support
          and willingness to move the document forward.
    The version of the document that was approved during WG Last Call is -03.
    As a shepherd I required a few editorial changes to the document to fix
    some nits.

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, 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?

         There are three independent implementations of the proposed extensions.


Who is the Document Shepherd?

   Luigi Iannone <>

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

   Deborah Brungard <>.

(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 reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and     understandable.
   I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG
   consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits and decided
   to ask the authors to fix them before submitting this writeup. The output of
   the IDnits tool for the -04 version of the document is provided on point 11.

(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.

    No broader review is required for this document.

(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?

    All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure.

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

          No IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.

(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 strong consensus behind this document,
          showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree 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 did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.15.01


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (July 19, 2018) is 4 days in the past.  Is this

  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 (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB 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?


(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?

          There are no normative references in unclear state. For
          clarification, there is two normative references
          (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis and draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis), but these
          documents passed as well WG Last Call. Worst case the RFC editor can
          hold this document in the queue until there is a RFC number for them.

(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.

(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 existing RFC's status will change due to the publication
        of this document.

(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

        The documents ask IANA to create a new registry for LISP-GPE "Next
  These are 8-bit values, new values are assigned via Standards
  Action [RFC5226].  Initial content of the registry will be as follows:
            | Next Protocol | Description | Reference     |
            | 0             | Reserved    | This Document |
            | 1             | IPv4        | This Document |
            | 2             | IPv6        | This Document |
            | 3             | Ethernet    | This Document |
            | 4             | NSH         | This Document |
            | 5..255        | Unassigned  |               |

(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, etc.

          The document does not contain anything written in a formal
          language, hence, no validation and/or check has been