An Architecture for Data-Center Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)
draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-12-20
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-11-12
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-11-08
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-10-10
|
Jasmine Magallanes | Posted related IPR disclosure: Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd's Statement about IPR related to draft-dunbar-nvo3-nva-mapping-distribution and draft-ietf-nvo3-arch | |
2016-10-04
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-09-21
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2016-09-21
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-09-21
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-09-21
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-09-21
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-09-21
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-09-21
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-09-21
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-09-20
|
08 | Alia Atlas | Ready to approve with no notes needed. |
2016-09-20
|
08 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-09-20
|
08 | David Black | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-09-20
|
08 | David Black | New version approved |
2016-09-20
|
08 | David Black | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-08.txt |
2016-09-20
|
08 | David Black | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "David L. Black" , "Jon Hudson" , "Lawrence Kreeger" , "Marc Lasserre" , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, "Dr. Thomas … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "David L. Black" , "Jon Hudson" , "Lawrence Kreeger" , "Marc Lasserre" , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, "Dr. Thomas Narten" |
2016-09-20
|
08 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I agree with Stephen's last comment and would like to see text added to address that. |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I found a small number of nits that I couldn't error-correct while reading, but I'm especially interested in Suresh's Discuss on TTL decrementing. … [Ballot comment] I found a small number of nits that I couldn't error-correct while reading, but I'm especially interested in Suresh's Discuss on TTL decrementing. I couldn't parse L3 VN to Legacy L2: This type of gateway forwards packets on between L3 VNs and legacy L2 networks such as VLANs or L2 VPNs. The MAC address in any frames forwarded between the legacy L2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ network would be the MAC address of the gateway. ^^^^^^^ I could guess, but something is borked, and I'm not sure what is meant. I'm having the same problem with L3 VN to L2 VN: This type of gateway forwards packets on between L3 VNs and L2 VNs. The MAC address in any frames forwarded between the L2 VN would be the MAC address of the gateway. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ further down. I know what "hard" and "soft" errors are in my world, but I'm not sure what's meant here. o Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X (soft error). o Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X (hard error). Are these clearly understood terms of art in NV03? If not, could you provide some parenthetical "i.e.", as you do for other items in the same list, or some reference if an appropriate reference exists? Is o Allow different protocols and architectures to be used to for ^^ ^^^ intra- vs. inter-NVA communication. just a typo, or is there something missing between "to" and "for"? |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - (This comment is just a generic remark, offered in the hope that future IPR declarations might be more tightly targeted, so there's … [Ballot comment] - (This comment is just a generic remark, offered in the hope that future IPR declarations might be more tightly targeted, so there's no need to respond to it.) It's not clear to me how an architecture with 2 RAND-with-fee IPR declarations amounts to a win here. Well, unless the IPR is rubbish maybe - I did take a look at those and do have an opinion, but I'll leave you to guess what that is:-) But the IPR declarations seem like they were timely, and the last call did mention them, so I guess it is what it is. Generally though, I think it'd be way better if IPR declarations were attached to specific protocol documents that the IPR holders consider relevant and not to architecture documents or similar. I can understand that making an IPR declaration on a document like this might be seen as getting the declaration out earlier (a good thing), but one has to wonder how anything here represents a credible invention. If that's the case I'd note that IPR declarations can be made that don't point at an Internet-draft which might be a better way to provide earlier notification to a WG. And declarations can be updated later to be associated with specific drafts if/when that's needed. - Generally this was pretty well written, thanks. - abstract/intro: "work with other components with no changes to other components" isn't great, suggest re-wording. - 4.2: ToR could do with an expansion on 1st use - 4.2.1: TS - I assume that's "tenant system" (from 7635) but you should say as it's used a good bit (and 7635 also defines "tenant separation" making TS potentially ambiguous). Mostly, uses of TS seem clear from context, but I think it'd be good to fix this and to check over where TS is used in this draft as there could be some subtlety there, e.g. whether or not a TSI is part of a TS or not (and is somehow architecturally "beside" a TS) could affect some later protocol work. - section 16: I think it might be worth noting here that meta-data and operational data could be unexpectedly sensitive, for example performance statistics could be used to infer what's being done in a VM or VN. So in addition to encrypting data in transit or storage, one might also want to consider minimising the types of data that NVEs/NVAs collect. That could have an impact on protocols defined later so may well be worth noting here too. If you do add text on that you may also want to recognise the tension between such data minimisation and the operational need to detect misbehaviours or errors happening within VNs. |
2016-09-15
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-09-14
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot discuss] * Section 3.1.2 : I am trying to understand why a minimum TTL decrement is expected here. I think the mandated behavior is … [Ballot discuss] * Section 3.1.2 : I am trying to understand why a minimum TTL decrement is expected here. I think the mandated behavior is incorrect and needs to be fixed. For L3 service, Tenant Systems should expect the IPv4 TTL (Time to Live) or IPv6 Hop Limit in the packets they send to be decremented by at least 1. e.g. Consider two IPv6 end systems that are connected using an L3 service. If one of them is the router and another is a host on the same network a significant part of the Neighbor Discovery functions will stop working if the hop limit is decremented (from 255 to 254). |
2016-09-14
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG … [Ballot comment] * For an architecture based on tunnels I found the lack of discussion concerning MTUs and fragmentation a bit disconcerting. Has the WG discussed this? |
2016-09-14
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-09-14
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Two tiny comments: - Call section 4.5 "Virtual Access Point (VAP)" instead of only "VAP" - I don't really understand this: "As is … [Ballot comment] Two tiny comments: - Call section 4.5 "Virtual Access Point (VAP)" instead of only "VAP" - I don't really understand this: "As is the case for L2VPN, there is a client/server relationship between the overlay and underlay networks..." How do the terms client and server help me here? More general: I was hoping to find a discussion on how existing protocols would be applicable to the three needed control protocols. Also do these three protocols need to be three different protocols or could all three cases potentially be covered by the same protocol (because the protocol mechanisms are the same and maybe even sometimes the same information needs to be exchanged)? |
2016-09-14
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-09-14
|
07 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-09-13
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-09-13
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-09-13
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-09-13
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-09-12
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-09-12
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-09-12
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2016-09-12
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-09-12
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-09-12
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-08-26
|
07 | Matthew Bocci | draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (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? Informational. This is appropriate as the draft describes an architecture for overlay networks in data centres. It does not specify new protocols, protocol numbers/registries, or protocol rules. Rather, it provides a descriptive architecture showing how functional elements and protocols relate, their relative roles, and where they fit in a multi-tenant data center. The intended status is properly indicated. (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 presents a high-level architecture for building data center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks. The architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major components of an overall system. Working Group Summary The document is one of the base documents chartered for the NVO3 working group. The document was originally created by a design team to help define the protocol architecture that the NVO3 working group would be working on, and to provide guidelines to define the role of various protocols in a multi-tenant data center. NVO3 is chartered to address a multi-tenant data centre with a centralised control plane architecture, and one role of this document is to define what that architecture is so the working group could progress with developing or adopting the appropriate protocols for each of the functional elements. This document was subject to a second working group last call (on changes only in version 7) since there were significant additions to the text based on AD review. There were no concerns raised about the revised text during the second working group last call. There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Document Quality I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a number of years. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com). The responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas (akatlas@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. The document shepherd reviewed v05 of the document. I had no significant technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in version 06. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has been developed within the WG and reviewed over a period of a number of IETFs. It received a number of comments during WG last call. (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 further review required. (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. No specific concerns. (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. Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance with BCP 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Neither of these resulted in any concerns being raised or further discussion in the working group. (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? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. The initial draft was the result of work by a design team that was reported on over a number of IETFs. It has been discussed over a long period , both in face to face IETF meetings and on the list. It received a number of comments in WG last call that were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward. (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.) None indicated. (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. ID-Nits passes. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no relevant formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All references are explicitly identified as 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? No (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. No. All references are informative. (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 does not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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). There are no IANA actions. (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. There are no IANA actions. (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. There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing. |
2016-08-26
|
07 | Matthew Bocci | draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-07.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (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? Informational. This is appropriate as the draft describes an architecture for overlay networks in data centres. It does not specify new protocols, protocol numbers/registries, or protocol rules. Rather, it provides a descriptive architecture showing how functional elements and protocols relate, their relative roles, and where they fit in a multi-tenant data center. The intended status is properly indicated. (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 presents a high-level architecture for building data center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks. The architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major components of an overall system. Working Group Summary The document is one of the base documents chartered for the NVO3 working group. The document was originally created by a design team to help define the protocol architecture that the NVO3 working group would be working on, and to provide guidelines to define the role of various protocols in a multi-tenant data center. NVO3 is chartered to address a multi-tenant data centre with a centralised control plane architecture, and one role of this document is to define what that architecture is so the working group could progress with developing or adopting the appropriate protocols for each of the functional elements. This document was subject to a second working group last call (on changes only in version 7) since there were significant additions to the text based on AD feedback. There were no concerns raised about the revised text during the second working group last call. There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Document Quality I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a number of years. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com). The responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas (akatlas@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. The document shepherd reviewed v05 of the document. I had no significant technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in version 06. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has been developed within the WG and reviewed over a period of a number of IETFs. It received a number of comments during WG last call. (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 further review required. (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. No specific concerns. (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. Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance with BCP 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Neither of these resulted in any concerns being raised or further discussion in the working group. (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? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. The initial draft was the result of work by a design team that was reported on over a number of IETFs. It has been discussed over a long period , both in face to face IETF meetings and on the list. It received a number of comments in WG last call that were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward. (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.) None indicated. (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. ID-Nits passes. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no relevant formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All references are explicitly identified as 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? No (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. No. All references are informative. (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 does not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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). There are no IANA actions. (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. There are no IANA actions. (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. There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing. |
2016-08-23
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Telechat date has been changed to 2016-09-15 from 2016-09-01 |
2016-08-16
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. |
2016-08-16
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-09-01 |
2016-08-16
|
07 | David Black | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-08-16
|
07 | David Black | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07.txt |
2016-08-12
|
06 | Takeshi Takahashi | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi. |
2016-08-12
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-08-12
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-08-12
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-08-04
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi |
2016-08-04
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi |
2016-08-01
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2016-08-01
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2016-08-01
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2016-08-01
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, "Matthew Bocci" , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-nvo3-arch@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, "Matthew Bocci" , nvo3-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Network Virtualization Overlays WG (nvo3) to consider the following document: - 'An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document presents a high-level overview architecture for building data center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks. The architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major components of an overall system. An important goal is to divide the space into individual smaller components that can be implemented independently and with clear interfaces and interactions with other components. It should be possible to build and implement individual components in isolation and have them work with other components with no changes to other components. That way implementers have flexibility in implementing individual components and can optimize and innovate within their respective components without requiring changes to other components. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2320/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2538/ |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-07-29
|
06 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-06.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … draft-ietf-nvo3-architecture-06.txt Document Shepherd Write-Up (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? Informational. This is appropriate as the draft describes an architecture for overlay networks in data centres. It does not specify new protocols, protocol numbers/registries, or protocol rules. Rather, it provides a descriptive architecture showing how functional elements and protocols relate, their relative roles, and where they fit in a multi-tenant data center. The intended status is properly indicated. (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 presents a high-level architecture for building data center network virtualization overlay (NVO3) networks. The architecture is given at a high-level, showing the major components of an overall system. Working Group Summary The document is one of the base documents chartered for the NVO3 working group. The document was originally created by a design team to help define the protocol architecture that the NVO3 working group would be working on, and to provide guidelines to define the role of various protocols in a multi-tenant data center. NVO3 is chartered to address a multi-tenant data centre with a centralised control plane architecture, and one role of this document is to define what that architecture is so the working group could progress with developing or adopting the appropriate protocols for each of the functional elements. There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Document Quality I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a number of years. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com). The responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas (akatlas@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. The document shepherd reviewed v05 of the document. I had no significant technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in version 06. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has been developed within the WG and reviewed over a period of a number of IETFs. It received a number of comments during WG last call. (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 further review required. (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. No specific concerns. (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. Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance with BCP 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are two IPR declarations on the draft (2320 and 2538). Neither of these resulted in any concerns being raised or further discussion in the working group. (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? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. The initial draft was the result of work by a design team that was reported on over a number of IETFs. It has been discussed over a long period , both in face to face IETF meetings and on the list. It received a number of comments in WG last call that were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward. (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.) None indicated. (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. ID-Nits passes. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no relevant formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All references are explicitly identified as 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? No (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. No. All references are informative. (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 does not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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). There are no IANA actions. (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. There are no IANA actions. (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. There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing. |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | Tags Waiting for Referencing Document, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2016-04-22
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com> from "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> |
2016-04-22
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Changed document writeup |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Larry Kreeger | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt |
2016-03-21
|
05 | Larry Kreeger | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-05.txt |
2015-11-25
|
04 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> |
2015-11-25
|
04 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Thomas Narten | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-04.txt |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Benson Schliesser" to (None) |
2015-03-09
|
03 | Larry Kreeger | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-03.txt |
2015-02-17
|
Naveen Khan | Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nvo3-arch | |
2014-10-27
|
02 | Thomas Narten | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-02.txt |
2014-10-14
|
01 | Benson Schliesser | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2014-10-14
|
01 | Benson Schliesser | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2014-10-14
|
01 | Benson Schliesser | Tag Waiting for Referencing Document set. |
2014-10-14
|
01 | Benson Schliesser | Notification list changed to "Benson Schliesser" <bensons@queuefull.net> |
2014-10-14
|
01 | Benson Schliesser | Document shepherd changed to Benson Schliesser |
2014-02-18
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Microsoft Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01 | |
2014-02-14
|
01 | Thomas Narten | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt |
2013-12-17
|
00 | Thomas Narten | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-00.txt |