Skip to main content

RIFT Applicability and Operational Considerations
draft-ietf-rift-applicability-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-06-13
16 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-06-13
16 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-06-13
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-06-13
16 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-16.txt
2024-06-13
16 (System) New version approved
2024-06-13
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2024-06-13
16 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2024-06-13
15 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup is 3 1/2 years old.  It still shows Alvaro as the responsible AD.  Are we sure it's still current?
2024-06-13
15 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-06-12
15 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. (This time, with intended ballot position!)

One nit, “1:/+1 protection schemes” really? I assume “1:/+1” is some kind of …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. (This time, with intended ballot position!)

One nit, “1:/+1 protection schemes” really? I assume “1:/+1” is some kind of tricky compression of “1:1 or 1+1” but please just write it out.
2024-06-12
15 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2024-06-12
15 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

One nit, “1:/+1 protection schemes” really? I assume “1:/+1” is some kind of tricky compression of “1:1 or 1+1” …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

One nit, “1:/+1 protection schemes” really? I assume “1:/+1” is some kind of tricky compression of “1:1 or 1+1” but please just write it out.
2024-06-12
15 John Scudder Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder
2024-06-12
15 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for /draft-ietf-rift-applicability-15

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for /draft-ietf-rift-applicability-15

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Jeffrey Zhang for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status and uses the old template (the latter point does not really matter though).

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Generic

Some contents appear to overlap a lot with the actual RIFT specification, OTOH this text is easier to read that the actual spec.

Are sections about implementations (section 5.6), advantages of RITF (section 5) really part of "applicability" ?

## Title

s/RIFT Applicability/RIFT Applicability and Operational Considerations/ IMHO, there is a difference between "applicability" and "operational considerations", i.e., the former does not include the latter.

## Section 1

s/identifies topology miscablings/identifies miscablings/ ? As I am unsure whether an abstract concept (topology) can be miscabled.

## Section 2

`These terms should be consistent` suggest being more assertive by s/should be/are/.

## Section 4

I was about to DISCUSS it... please add RFC 5340 (OSPFv3) to the list.

## Section 4.2.1

About ring-based protection (last paragraph), isn't it still useful to handle the case when one horizontal link fails ?

## Section 4.2.2

`RIFT implementations can be extended` and `The RIFT specification itself does not provide the exact details` make me wonder whether this section should be removed.

## Section 4.2.3

This section repeats a lot of explanations about RIFT that were already stated earlier. It also re-expands DAG, which was already done.

What is the 'this' in `This can be achieved with a ring as` ? Suggest to merge the last two bullets to make it clear.

## Section 4.3.2

Is the term "metro fabric" well understood in the IETF community ?

## Section 4.3.3

Should there be informational references to BGP and PNNI ?

## Section 4.3.4

Suggest explaining what is the purpose of the fabric in `to use fabrics`

## Section 5

Suggest moving the leading part of this section in to-be-created "RIFT Advantages in Applicable Topologies" section (and anyway unsure whether this content belongs to an applicability I-D).

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 4.1

s/gateway to the internet/gateway to the Internet/

## Section 5.14

s/ISIS/IS-IS/ ?
2024-06-12
15 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-06-11
15 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-06-11
15 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-06-09
15 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-rift-applicability-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-rift-applicability-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

* I'm not a big fan of all this 8505 ND registration stuff, as it really
  doesn't seem applicable to the vast majority of intended RIFT
  implementations, nor is it something with much support or operational
  experience outside IoT networks.  It feels like the topic has been forced
  into the document.

  But it's all informational, so :shrug:.
2024-06-09
15 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-06-03
15 Jenny Bui Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-06-13
2024-06-03
15 Jim Guichard Ballot has been issued
2024-06-03
15 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-06-03
15 Jim Guichard Created "Approve" ballot
2024-06-03
15 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was changed
2024-06-03
15 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-05-29
15 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-05-22
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-05-22
15 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry 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, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-05-15
15 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, rift-chairs@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, rift-chairs@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org, zzhang@juniper.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RIFT Applicability) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Routing In Fat Trees WG (rift) to
consider the following document: - 'RIFT Applicability'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-05-29. 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 discusses the properties, applicability and operational
  considerations of RIFT in different network scenarios.  It intends to
  provide a rough guide how RIFT can be deployed to simplify routing
  operations in Clos topologies and their variations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rift-applicability/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2024-05-15
15 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-05-15
15 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2024-05-15
15 Jim Guichard Last call was requested
2024-05-15
15 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2024-05-13
15 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2024-05-13
15 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-05-13
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-05-13
15 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-15.txt
2024-05-13
15 (System) New version approved
2024-05-13
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2024-05-13
15 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2024-05-13
14 (System) Changed action holders to Yuehua Wei, Zheng Zhang, Dmitry Afanasiev, Pascal Thubert, Tony Przygienda (IESG state changed)
2024-05-13
14 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-05-05
14 Daniam Henriques Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Stig Venaas was withdrawn
2024-05-01
14 Sasha Vainshtein Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein.
2024-05-01
14 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-04-30
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-04-30
14 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry 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, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-04-18
14 Daniam Henriques Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein
2024-04-18
14 Watson Ladd Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. Sent review to list.
2024-04-18
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2024-04-17
14 Daniam Henriques Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stig Venaas
2024-04-17
14 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-04-17
14 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, rift-chairs@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, rift-chairs@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org, zzhang@juniper.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RIFT Applicability) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Routing In Fat Trees WG (rift) to
consider the following document: - 'RIFT Applicability'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-05-01. 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 discusses the properties, applicability and operational
  considerations of RIFT in different network scenarios.  It intends to
  provide a rough guide how RIFT can be deployed to simplify routing
  operations in Clos topologies and their variations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rift-applicability/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2024-04-17
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-04-17
14 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2024-04-17
14 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2024-04-17
14 Jim Guichard Last call was requested
2024-04-17
14 Jim Guichard Last call announcement was generated
2024-04-17
14 Jim Guichard Ballot approval text was generated
2024-04-17
14 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was generated
2024-04-17
14 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-04-16
14 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2024-04-16
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-04-16
14 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-14.txt
2024-04-16
14 (System) New version approved
2024-04-16
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2024-04-16
14 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2024-04-16
13 (System) Changed action holders to Yuehua Wei, Zheng Zhang, Dmitry Afanasiev, Pascal Thubert, Tony Przygienda (IESG state changed)
2024-04-16
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-04-16
13 Jim Guichard AD review comments for v-13 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/8hftQXsvKX7XVm4auY8rDCF4LJo/ ===
2024-04-15
13 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2024-04-15
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-04-15
13 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-13.txt
2024-04-15
13 (System) New version approved
2024-04-15
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2024-04-15
13 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2024-03-21
12 (System) Changed action holders to Yuehua Wei, Zheng Zhang, Dmitry Afanasiev, Pascal Thubert, Tony Przygienda (IESG state changed)
2024-03-21
12 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-01-26
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Ron Bonica Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
12 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2023-12-25
12 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-12-25
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-12-25
12 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-12.txt
2023-12-25
12 Yuehua Wei New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuehua Wei)
2023-12-25
12 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2023-10-05
11 (System) Changed action holders to Yuehua Wei, Zheng Zhang, Dmitry Afanasiev, Pascal Thubert, Tony Przygienda (IESG state changed)
2023-10-05
11 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-06-12
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2023-06-12
11 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Jon Mitchell was withdrawn
2023-05-03
11 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-05-03
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-05-03
11 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-11.txt
2023-05-03
11 (System) New version approved
2023-05-03
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2023-05-03
11 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2023-04-20
10 (System) Changed action holders to Yuehua Wei, Zheng Zhang, Dmitry Afanasiev, Pascal Thubert, Tony Przygienda, Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-04-20
10 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2023-03-29
10 Amy Vezza Changed action holders to Jim Guichard
2023-03-29
10 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Jim Guichard
2022-10-12
10 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2022-10-12
10 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-10-12
10 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to zzhang@juniper.net, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from zzhang@juniper.net
2021-12-20
10 Jenny Bui Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2021-12-18
10 Zhaohui Zhang
(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? …
(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 RFC. Correctly categorized and 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 discusses the properties, applicability and operational
  considerations of RIFT in different network scenarios.  It intends to
  provide a rough guide how RIFT can be deployed to simplify routing
  operations in Clos topologies and their variations.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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?

There are three known implementations of RIFT protocol and interop was demo'ed
between two of them. This document is about applicability not the protocol
itself so the above questions do not apply.

Personnel:

Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang is the shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the AD.

(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 went through two revisions as an Individual draft and ten
revisions as a WG document. Each revision is the result of some reviews.
All outstanding issues/comments have been addressed and the document
is ready to progress.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(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.

(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. Shepherd's review comments have been addressed.

(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?

This document is not about the protocol but about its applicability.
However, all authors and contributors have made appropriate IPR declarations.

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

No.


(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?

Solid consensus among active RIFT participants.

(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.

(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.

No outstanding nits in -9 revision.
-10 revision has an outdated reference to rift-13 (should be -14) but that
can be corrected while addressing AD review comments.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(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.

(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.

(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).

No IANA actions needed.

(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 IANA actions needed.

(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.

No formal language sections.

(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?

No Yang module.
2021-12-18
10 Zhaohui Zhang Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2021-12-18
10 Zhaohui Zhang IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2021-12-18
10 Zhaohui Zhang IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-12-18
10 Zhaohui Zhang IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-12-18
10 Zhaohui Zhang IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-12-18
10 Zhaohui Zhang
(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? …
(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 RFC. Correctly categorized and 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 discusses the properties, applicability and operational
  considerations of RIFT in different network scenarios.  It intends to
  provide a rough guide how RIFT can be deployed to simplify routing
  operations in Clos topologies and their variations.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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?

There are three known implementations of RIFT protocol and interop was demo'ed
between two of them. This document is about applicability not the protocol
itself so the above questions do not apply.

Personnel:

Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang is the shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the AD.

(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 went through two revisions as an Individual draft and ten
revisions as a WG document. Each revision is the result of some reviews.
All outstanding issues/comments have been addressed and the document
is ready to progress.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(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.

(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. Shepherd's review comments have been addressed.

(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?

This document is not about the protocol but about its applicability.
However, all authors and contributors have made appropriate IPR declarations.

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

No.


(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?

Solid consensus among active RIFT participants.

(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.

(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.

No outstanding nits in -9 revision.
-10 revision has an outdated reference to rift-13 (should be -14) but that
can be corrected while addressing AD review comments.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(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.

(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.

(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).

No IANA actions needed.

(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 IANA actions needed.

(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.

No formal language sections.

(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?

No Yang module.
2021-12-16
10 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-10.txt
2021-12-16
10 (System) New version approved
2021-12-16
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang , rift-chairs@ietf.org
2021-12-16
10 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2021-12-12
09 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-09.txt
2021-12-12
09 (System) New version approved
2021-12-12
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2021-12-12
09 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2021-11-07
08 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-08.txt
2021-11-07
08 (System) New version approved
2021-11-07
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2021-11-07
08 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2021-09-23
07 Zhaohui Zhang WGLC started in 12/2020. Several revisions were published since then to address mostly directorate reviews. Latest -07 revision is ready.
2021-09-23
07 Zhaohui Zhang IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-09-17
07 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-07.txt
2021-09-17
07 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuehua Wei)
2021-09-17
07 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2021-07-25
06 Ralf Weber Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Ralf Weber. Sent review to list.
2021-07-06
06 Jeff Tantsura Notification list changed to zzhang@juniper.net because the document shepherd was set
2021-07-06
06 Jeff Tantsura Document shepherd changed to Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
2021-05-12
06 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-06.txt
2021-05-12
06 (System) New version approved
2021-05-12
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Tom Verhaeg , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2021-05-12
06 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2021-04-28
05 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ralf Weber
2021-04-28
05 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ralf Weber
2021-04-26
05 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-05.txt
2021-04-26
05 (System) New version approved
2021-04-26
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Tom Verhaeg , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2021-04-26
05 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2021-03-29
04 Francesca Palombini Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2021-01-21
04 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-04.txt
2021-01-21
04 (System) New version approved
2021-01-21
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dmitry Afanasiev , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Tom Verhaeg , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang
2021-01-21
04 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2021-01-19
03 Watson Ladd Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. Sent review to list.
2021-01-19
03 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti. Sent review to list.
2021-01-15
03 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Samita Chakrabarti
2021-01-15
03 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Samita Chakrabarti
2021-01-15
03 Samita Chakrabarti Assignment of request for Last Call review by IOTDIR to Thomas Watteyne was marked no-response
2021-01-10
03 Mike McBride Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Mike McBride. Sent review to list.
2021-01-06
03 Tommy Pauly Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Tommy Pauly. Sent review to list.
2020-12-14
03 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2020-12-14
03 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Tommy Pauly
2020-12-14
03 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Tommy Pauly
2020-12-10
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2020-12-10
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2020-12-10
03 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Thomas Watteyne
2020-12-10
03 Samita Chakrabarti Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Thomas Watteyne
2020-12-10
03 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2020-12-10
03 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2020-12-10
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2020-12-10
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2020-12-10
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell
2020-12-10
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by ARTART
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by TSVART
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by IOTDIR
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by INTDIR
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by GENART
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2020-12-09
03 Jeff Tantsura IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2020-10-13
03 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03.txt
2020-10-13
03 (System) New version approved
2020-10-13
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Tom Verhaeg , Pascal Thubert , Dmitry Afanasiev , Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk
2020-10-13
03 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2020-10-09
02 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-02.txt
2020-10-09
02 (System) New version approved
2020-10-09
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yuehua Wei , Tom Verhaeg , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Zheng Zhang , Dmitry Afanasiev …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yuehua Wei , Tom Verhaeg , Jaroslaw Kowalczyk , Pascal Thubert , Zheng Zhang , Dmitry Afanasiev , rift-chairs@ietf.org
2020-10-09
02 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2020-10-05
01 (System) Document has expired
2020-04-03
01 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01.txt
2020-04-03
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuehua Wei)
2020-04-03
01 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision
2020-03-24
00 Zhaohui Zhang This document now replaces draft-wei-rift-applicability instead of None
2020-02-23
00 Yuehua Wei New version available: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-00.txt
2020-02-23
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-02-22
00 Yuehua Wei Set submitter to "Yuehua Wei ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: rift-chairs@ietf.org
2020-02-22
00 Yuehua Wei Uploaded new revision