Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
    is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in
    the title page header?

  This is an Informational document, as indicated in the title page
  headers, that discusses the TRILL active-active edge and problems
  that may need to be overcome. It contains no protocol

(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:

   The TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol
   provides support for flow level multi-pathing with rapid failover
   for both unicast and multi-destination traffic in networks with
   arbitrary topology. Active-active at the TRILL edge is the
   extension of these characteristics to end stations that are
   multiply connected to a TRILL campus. This informational document
   discusses the high level problems and goals when providing
   active-active connection at the TRILL edge.

Working Group Summary:

   There was broad working group consensus that this document
   addresses and in favor of its publication as an Informational RFC. 

Document Quality:

  This document is of good quality. A significant number of vendors
  indicated that the active-active problem described in this document
  is of high importance to their customers and they plan to implement
  a solution.


  Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
  Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd.

  Both before an after declaration of WG consensus, the Shepherd
  carfully reveiwed the document and made a number of minor
  suggestions that have been incorporated.

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


(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?

  As an already well reviewed informational document in the TRILL
  area, I do not feel that any such special extra review is 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?

  No special concerns or issues.

(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.


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

  No IPR disclosures have been filed against this draft.

(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

  There is a broad consensus in the WG that active-active is, along
  with OAM, one of the two most urgent and important areas for the WG
  to address and there is a broad consensus, based on both meetings
  and the mailing list, that this document is a reasonable
  presentation of the problem and goals for a solution.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
     document. (See and the
     Internet-Drafts Checklist).


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

  No such formal review required.

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


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
     for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC

  No, although there is one normative reference to a non-IETF standard
  (ISO/IEC 10589:2002).

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
     existing RFCs?


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
     considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
     with the body of the document.

  This document requires no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
     future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
     would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new

  This document creates no new IANA 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, etc.

  None of this document is written in any such formal language.