RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees
draft-ietf-rift-rift-17
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-05-05
|
17 | Jim Guichard | === AD partial review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rift-rift/17 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/GOv6gErHB79B-goxoeCo9Rjr1vg/ |
2023-03-29
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard |
2023-03-29
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Jim Guichard |
2023-03-13
|
17 | Jordan Head | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-17.txt |
2023-03-13
|
17 | Jordan Head | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jordan Head) |
2023-03-13
|
17 | Jordan Head | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-19
|
16 | Zheng Zhang | Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach … Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? The WG consensus is solid. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Yes. At least two implementations existed. Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. The contents of this document have no closely interact with technologies in other IETF WG or external organizations. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? No. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Thrift compilers have successfully generated automatic code from the Information Elements Schema defined in Appendix B, which are used in two interoperable implementations. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has done a complete and general review of the Document. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. A new version (-17) with nits modification is going to be published. This document is ready to be submitted to IESG. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The IETF Areas’ comments have been addressed. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The intended status is Proposed Standards. It is indicated in the header. It matches with the content of the Document which defines protocol procedures. All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. All Authors and Contributors have made a statement regarding their knowledge of IPR which would relate to this Document. Six IPR disclosures have been made against this Document. The WG did not raise any issue with the existence of these IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. The number of authors exceeds five. The sixth co-author Jordan Head is the main editor of version 16. He did great job to improve the draft. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) Some idnits noise exist, but only editorial changes needed. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? The community has sufficient access to review such normative references. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). There was a long thread with the AD about registry naming/structure. Aligned with his suggestions, the document lists IANA registries to be created, with reasonable names, detailed specification of initial contents and procedures for future allocations (expert review). 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. Tony Przygienda, Bruno Rijsman and Pascal Thubert are suggested as the IANA Experts for the new registries. |
2022-09-12
|
16 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-12
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-09-12
|
16 | Jordan Head | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-16.txt |
2022-09-12
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-09-12
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Bruno Rijsman , Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda , rift-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-09-12
|
16 | Jordan Head | Uploaded new revision |
2022-08-10
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Tony Przygienda, Alvaro Retana, Pascal Thubert, Dmitry Afanasiev, Alankar Sharma, Bruno Rijsman (IESG state changed) |
2022-08-10
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-01-03
|
15 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-15.txt |
2022-01-03
|
15 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2021-12-14
|
14 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-14.txt |
2021-12-14
|
14 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2021-11-04
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana |
2021-07-12
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Tony Przygienda (IESG state changed) |
2021-07-12
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2021-07-12
|
13 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-13.txt |
2021-07-12
|
13 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2021-05-25
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 3) === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/fnb58-i2L420su5TsL7_WBANPvk/ |
2021-05-25
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Tony Przygienda, Pascal Thubert, Dmitry Afanasiev, Alankar Sharma, Bruno Rijsman (IESG state changed) |
2021-05-25
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2021-04-30
|
12 | Bernie Volz | Closed request for Early review by INTDIR with state 'Withdrawn': For now, as this document is at -12 and had "not ready/has issues" reviews from … Closed request for Early review by INTDIR with state 'Withdrawn': For now, as this document is at -12 and had "not ready/has issues" reviews from other directorates and has not been update since 5/25/2020, assume this document is dead for now. |
2021-03-29
|
12 | Francesca Palombini | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2021-03-29
|
12 | Francesca Palombini | Closed request for Early review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2021-03-05
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 2a) === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/r_YVHdNgrwtt_0wPotml1FBHmyI/ |
2021-01-15
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 1) === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/yTujeIBGVuYcQMgnpTvVN_qPW9Y/ |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Zheng Zhang <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Zheng Zhang <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> |
2020-06-02
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-06-02
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2020-06-02
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The intended status is Proposed Standards. It is indicated in the header. It matches with the content of the Document which defines protocol procedures. (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 defines a specialized, dynamic routing protocol for Clos and fat-tree network topologies optimized towards minimization of configuration and operational complexity. Working Group Summary: The RIFT WG supports the publication of this Document as a Proposed Standard RFC. Document Quality: Several implementations of this technology exist. Many reviewers provide comments and suggestions. This document is clear and well-written. Personnel: Zheng Zhang is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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. This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has done a complete and general review of the Document. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. A new version (-12) with nits modification is going to be published. This document is ready to be submitted to IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such reviews needed. (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 such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All Authors and Contributors have made a statement regarding their knowledge of IPR which would relate to this Document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Six IPR disclosures have been made against this Document. The WG did not raise any issue with the existence of these IPR. (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? The WG consensus is solid. (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 errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. With one update in version 12 of this document. (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). There was a long thread with the AD about registry naming/structure. Aligned with his suggestions, the document lists IANA registries to be created, with reasonable names, detailed specification of initial contents and procedures for future allocations (expert review). (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. Tony Przygienda, Bruno Rijsman and Pascal Thubert are suggested as the IANA Experts for the new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. Thrift compilers have successfully generated automatic code from the Information Elements Schema defined in Appendix B, which are used in two interoperable implementations. (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. |
2020-06-02
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2020-06-02
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2020-06-02
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-06-02
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-06-01
|
12 | Zheng Zhang | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The intended status is Proposed Standards. It is indicated in the header. It matches with the content of the Document which defines protocol procedures. (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 defines a specialized, dynamic routing protocol for Clos and fat-tree network topologies optimized towards minimization of configuration and operational complexity. Working Group Summary: The RIFT WG supports the publication of this Document as a Proposed Standard RFC. Document Quality: Several implementations of this technology exist. Many reviewers provide comments and suggestions. This document is clear and well-written. Personnel: Zheng Zhang is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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. This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has done a complete and general review of the Document. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. A new version (-12) with nits modification is going to be published. This document is ready to be submitted to IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such reviews needed. (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 such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All Authors and Contributors have made a statement regarding their knowledge of IPR which would relate to this Document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Six IPR disclosures have been made against this Document. The WG did not raise any issue with the existence of these IPR. (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? The WG consensus is solid. (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 errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. With one update in version 12 of this document. (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). There was a long thread with the AD about registry naming/structure. Aligned with his suggestions, the document lists IANA registries to be created, with reasonable names, detailed specification of initial contents and procedures for future allocations (expert review). (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. Tony Przygienda, Bruno Rijsman and Pascal Thubert are suggested as the IANA Experts for the new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. Thrift compilers have successfully generated automatic code from the Information Elements Schema defined in Appendix B, which are used in two interoperable implementations. (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. |
2020-05-26
|
12 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-12.txt |
2020-05-26
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-26
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Rijsman , Alankar Sharma , Dmitry Afanasiev , rift-chairs@ietf.org, Tony Przygienda , Pascal Thubert |
2020-05-26
|
12 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
11 | Zheng Zhang | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The intended status is Proposed Standards. It is indicated in the header. It matches with the content of the Document which defines protocol procedures. (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 defines a specialized, dynamic routing protocol for Clos and fat-tree network topologies optimized towards minimization of configuration and operational complexity. Working Group Summary: The RIFT WG supports the publication of this Document as a Proposed Standard RFC. Document Quality: Several implementations of this technology exist. Many reviewers provide comments and suggestions. This document is clear and well-written. Personnel: Zheng Zhang is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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. This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has done a complete and general review of the Document. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. A new version (-12) with nits modification is going to be published. This document is ready to be submitted to IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such reviews needed. (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 such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All Authors and Contributors have made a statement regarding their knowledge of IPR which would relate to this Document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Six IPR disclosures have been made against this Document. The WG did not raise any issue with the existence of these IPR. (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? The WG consensus is solid. (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 errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. With one update in version 12 of this document. (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). The document requests 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. No. (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. Not applicable. (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. |
2020-05-20
|
11 | Zheng Zhang | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The intended status is Proposed Standards. It is indicated in the header. It matches with the content of the Document which defines protocol procedures. (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 defines a specialized, dynamic routing protocol for Clos and fat-tree network topologies optimized towards minimization of configuration and operational complexity. Working Group Summary: The RIFT WG supports the publication of this Document as a Proposed Standard RFC. Document Quality: Several implementations of this technology exist. Many reviewers provide comments and suggestions. This document is clear and well-written. Personnel: Zheng Zhang is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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. This document is ready for publication. The document shepherd has done a complete and general review of the Document. All issues that were raised in the working group have been addressed. A new version (-12) with nits modification is going to be published. This document is ready to be submitted to IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such reviews needed. (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 such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All Authors and Contributors have made a statement regarding their knowledge of IPR which would relate to this Document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Six IPR disclosures have been made against this Document. The WG did not raise any issue with the existence of these IPR. (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? The WG consensus is solid. (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 errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. With one update in version 12 of this document. (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). The document requests 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. N/A. (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. Not applicable. (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. |
2020-04-03
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Closed request for Early review by TSVART with state 'Overtaken by Events': will check at IETF LC |
2020-03-27
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Assignment of request for Early review by TSVART to Ian Swett was withdrawn |
2020-03-10
|
11 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-11.txt |
2020-03-10
|
11 | (System) | Forced post of submission |
2020-03-10
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Rijsman , Dmitry Afanasiev , Alankar Sharma , Tony Przygienda , Pascal Thubert , rift-chairs@ietf.org |
2020-03-10
|
11 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-10
|
10 | Henrik Levkowetz | Corrected the rev number |
2020-01-29
|
10 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-10.txt |
2020-01-29
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-29
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rift-chairs@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert , Dmitry Afanasiev , Bruno Rijsman , Alankar Sharma , Tony Przygienda |
2020-01-29
|
10 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-25
|
09 | Bernie Volz | Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to Joe Abley was marked no-response |
2019-11-25
|
09 | Bernie Volz | Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to Ted Lemon was marked no-response |
2019-11-20
|
09 | Jeff Tantsura | Added to session: IETF-106: rift Thu-1330 |
2019-11-12
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Ian Swett |
2019-11-12
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Ian Swett |
2019-11-12
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Withdrawn': Duplicate |
2019-11-05
|
09 | Bernie Volz | Closed request for Last Call review by INTDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2019-11-04
|
09 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-09.txt |
2019-11-04
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-04
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Dmitry Afanasiev , rift-chairs@ietf.org, Tony Przygienda , Pascal Thubert |
2019-11-04
|
09 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-31
|
08 | Nagendra Nainar | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Nagendra Kumar. Sent review to list. |
2019-10-31
|
08 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick. |
2019-10-28
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Request for Early review by GENART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2019-10-09
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | Notification list changed to Zheng Zhang <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> |
2019-10-09
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | Document shepherd changed to Zheng Zhang |
2019-10-09
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2019-10-03
|
08 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2019-10-03
|
08 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2019-10-03
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2019-09-26
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. |
2019-09-23
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Allison Mankin |
2019-09-23
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Allison Mankin |
2019-09-19
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2019-09-19
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2019-09-19
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-09-19
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-09-19
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Kumar |
2019-09-19
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Kumar |
2019-09-19
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Allison Mankin |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Allison Mankin |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Zhaohui Zhang | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick |
2019-09-13
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by ARTART |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by TSVART |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by INTDIR |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Adrian Farrel Last Call RTGDIR review |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Scott Kelly Last Call SECDIR review |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by GENART |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Robert Sparks Last Call GENART review |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to John Drake was withdrawn |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to John Drake |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to John Drake |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by ARTART |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by TSVART |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by INTDIR |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by GENART |
2019-09-10
|
08 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by SECDIR |
2019-09-08
|
08 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-08.txt |
2019-09-08
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Dmitry Afanasiev , rift-chairs@ietf.org, Tony Przygienda , Pascal Thubert |
2019-09-08
|
08 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-16
|
07 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-07.txt |
2019-08-16
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-15
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: The Team , rift-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-08-15
|
07 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-23
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Russ White. |
2019-07-08
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White |
2019-07-08
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White |
2019-07-08
|
06 | Min Ye | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Michael Richardson was marked no-response |
2019-06-23
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson |
2019-06-23
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson |
2019-06-23
|
06 | Zhaohui Zhang | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2019-06-23
|
06 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-06.txt |
2019-06-23
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-23
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: The Team , rift-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-06-23
|
06 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-23
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-05.txt |
2019-04-23
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-23
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: The Team , rift-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-04-23
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-11
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. |
2019-03-07
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-03-07
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-03-03
|
04 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2019-03-03
|
04 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-04.txt |
2019-03-03
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-03
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: The Team , rift-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-03-03
|
04 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-19
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rift-rift | |
2018-11-05
|
03 | Zhaohui Zhang | Added to session: IETF-103: rift Wed-1540 |
2018-10-19
|
03 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-03.txt |
2018-10-19
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-19
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alia Atlas , rift-chairs@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert , John Drake , Alankar Sharma , Tony Przygienda |
2018-10-19
|
03 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-19
|
02 | Jeff Tantsura | Added to session: IETF-102: rift Thu-1330 |
2018-07-05
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure: Juniper's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rift-rift | |
2018-06-22
|
02 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-02.txt |
2018-06-22
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-22
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alia Atlas , rift-chairs@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert , John Drake , Alankar Sharma , Tony Przygienda |
2018-06-22
|
02 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-27
|
01 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-01.txt |
2018-04-27
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-27
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Drake , Alankar Sharma , Alia Atlas , rift-chairs@ietf.org, Tony Przygienda |
2018-04-27
|
01 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-25
|
00 | Zhaohui Zhang | This document now replaces draft-przygienda-rift instead of None |
2018-04-25
|
00 | Tony Przygienda | New version available: draft-ietf-rift-rift-00.txt |
2018-04-25
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-04-25
|
00 | Tony Przygienda | Set submitter to "Tony Przygienda ", replaces to draft-przygienda-rift and sent approval email to group chairs: rift-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-04-25
|
00 | Tony Przygienda | Uploaded new revision |