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?
(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:
Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on simplified layer 3 routing. Furthermore, requirements for operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on BGP as their single routing protocol for both their fabric routing and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This draft describes how such infrastructure can apply BGP-SPF (draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-09) technology.
This draft is Informational and discusses the usage and applicability of Link State Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide a simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions.
Working Group Summary:
The LSVR WG enjoyed a turbulent startup period. The IDR WG and LSR WG handle routing for interdomain and intradomain, while LSVR is using foundational technology of both BGP and SPF based routing protocols. The IETF face-2-face meetings avoided timing overlap to allow IDR and LSR WG participants to voice the depths of their experience and technology authority. This contributed to develop and provide guidelines and applicability information for BGP-SPF based LSVR documented by draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability.
Draft draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-05 is target informational draft.
The draft went through few iterations being presented at the face-2-face IETF LSVR WG meetings and volunteer review cycles that have been tracked within the WG email list.
The draft did not go through any early review cycles.
Implementations of the LSVR BGP-SPF exist, however this draft is about how to apply BGP-SPF LSVR technology
Document Shepherd: Gunter Van de Velde
Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana
(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 has been presented few times during the IETF WG meetings and the document went through WGLC.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The LSVR WG is a working group that exists of senior member from both IDR and LSR working groups. Feedback and reviews have been executed, and been incorporated by the document authors.
(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.
This document explain how to use BGP-SPF LSVR technology.
(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.
(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 responded for no IPR awareness. No WG member responded with IPR awarenes
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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?
This document was produced to explain how BGP-SPF is expected to be applied in MSDC environments. It was created by the lead authors of the BGP-SPF LSVR draft, and while reviewed by the working group, it does reflect for the most the opinion of those lead BGP-SPF authors.
(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 Appeal threatenings
(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.
Only idnit was an reference to an older version (draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-07) of the bgp-spf draft, which was caused by a last minute update of that draft to be release -08.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG document is pending creation for LSVR BGP-SPF
(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?
This draft document depends normative upon [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]. This applicability draft explains how to apply ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf in a network environment
(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.
(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.
(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).
This draft suggest no IANA changes. No changes are 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.
(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.
(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?
YANG will be handled in a different LSVR YANG document for BGP-SPF