Shepherd writeup


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?

   This is appropriate as the draft describes how existing protocols/procedures
   can operate in an NVO3 environment when virtual machines move e.g. from one NVE to
   another to minimise the impact of the move. It does not define new protocols
   or require new code points or registries, or specify specific best practices.
   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 describes virtual machine (VM) mobility solutions
   commonly used in data centers built with an overlay network. This
   document is intended for describing the solutions and the impact of
   moving VMs, or applications, from one rack to another connected by
   the overlay network. For layer 2, it is based on using an NVA (Network Virtualization
   Authority) to NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) protocol to update
   ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) tables or neighbor cache entries
   after a VM moves from an old NVE to a new NVE.  For Layer 3, it is
   based on address and connection migration after the move.

Working Group Summary

   The document was developed to address the need to describe how virtual machine
   mobility operates in the context of an NVO3 architecture. The networking aspects 
   of VM mobility are a particular challenge in existing datacenter networks, and 
   teer wa a desire to address these with the move to virtualised overlay networks.
   Note that the draft is limited to the scope of NVO3. VM mobility is a much wider 
   issue, so the draft does not cover aspects outside of NVO3's charter. However, 
   there are aspects of operations and transport that affect it and so reviews
   by the OpsArea and TSVART were sought. The TSVART review in particular generated
   considerable debate with the authors. The majority of these comments were resolved.
   There are no IPR declarations on the draft . 

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, as well as receiving RTG, Ops, and transport area reviews. 
   The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need 


   The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (
   The responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux (

(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 several versions of the document. I had no 
  significant technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were 
  resolved in version 15. 

(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 years. As mentioned above, it has also been reviewed by the 
  RTGDir, OPSDir and TSVART.

(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

   Theer are no 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? 

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. 
    There were no objections during last call.

(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 appeals threatened. The chair did receive some 
  private objections from one of the authors that were related to non-technical 
  changes made as a result of the TSVART review.

(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

      ID-Nits passes except for one waring about excess white space on line 565. 

(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 or normative.

(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?


(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.

  This document updates RFC4761. The update is required because the draft presents some
  changes to the multi-homing procedures in RFC4761. The update is properly indicated
  and it is obvious form the draft text where changes to 4761 are required to support 
  the mechanisms in this draft.

(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).

   Theer are no requests made of IANA.

(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 new IANA registries 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.

   There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.