Shepherd writeup

Shepherd write-up Template version: 24 February 2012.
Shepherd: Susan Hares 
Date: 5/31/2017
Status:  Awaiting further resolution of Alvaro's and Suresh's SEND comments.

type of RFC: Proposed standard 

(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?

Specifies an optimized ARP/ND responses to be implemented in 
TRILL RBridges.  Standard specifies an optional, but highly 
useful additional to TRILL to reduce ARP/ND query flooding.  

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
   This document describes mechanisms to optimize the ARP (Address
   Resolution Protocol) and ND (Neighbor Discovery) traffic in TRILL
   campus. Such optimization reduces packet flooding over a TRILL

Working Group Summary

This WG Draft is part of a directory service solution 
that has been discussed for 3 years.  Consensus 
is strong on the complete solution. 

Status:  Awaiting further resolution of Alvaro's and Suresh's SEND comments.

Document Quality
a) Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

This draft is part of the TRILL WG directory service work item.  
The lack of directory services was one of the major challenges deployments 
of TRILL have encounter in the field. 

Protocol standards
1) draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms - directory service for TRILL Edge switches (at RFC editors) 
2) [RFC7978 - RBridge Channel Header Extension (secure tunnel method allows encapsulation of address information) 
3) RFC 7961 - reporting of addresses for TRILL interfaces in ISIS application sub-TLV (replaces ARP/ND) 
4) draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization - mechanism to optimize ARP and ND traffic
    on TRILL campus 
5) Smart end nodes - reducing size of end-node table in rbridges by allowing "smart" endnodes to volunteer
for ending node learning. 
 6)draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap-04  - encapsulation modification for data centers 

 b) Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification?
  Directory service mechanism are currently implemented as proprietary 
  fashions by every vendor that does some variant of TRILL (cisco, brocade, Huawei
  and others).  Until we get a full standard solution approved, the 
  existing vendors with "early TRILL" implementations have little reason
  to switch. 

  Huawei is planning implementations. Potentially Brocade and Cisco
  could switch to these mechanisms, but unless IETF standards are out
  as a set - this may not occur.   

 Shepherd review:
Revision -01
(note: no change to RFC2119 text, Shepherd is checking on the right RFC2199 text). 

Revision -07 WG LC
Shepherd's review is contained in this WG LC. 

Revision -08 WG LC
Routing QA review: Eric Gray

Routing QA 2nd review: Geoff Houston

WG LC  of version-8
AD: Alia Atlas
WG chairs: Susan Hares and Jon Hudson
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares 
Routing QA Review:  2 done 

(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.

1) review of text and concepts
2) Routing QA Reviewer: Eric Gray: Minor concerns 
Minor concerns: resolved.

3) Routing QA 2nd review: Geoff Houston: 
Status: ready with nits:

4) IESG review cycle found a problem with the 
Status:  Awaiting further resolution of Alvaro's and Suresh's SEND comments.

call for WG LC on changes
Shepherd's indication that not all was fixed
final WG LC ((5/2 to 5/9)

3) WG LC comments - 
After the initial WG LC, the IESG review and resend to the WG, 
and 2 WG LCs on this document.  The final review was a "final check review".
No one has indicated any problems with version draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-08.txt. 

The shepherd does not see any additional issues. 

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

No.  After 4 cycles of review and WG LC, I believe we've final nailed down all the issues. 

(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.

Suresh and Alvaro should - double check the ARP/ND problems 
one more time during AD evaluation, then hopefully - it will go quickly. 
I have sent a request to Suresh and Alvaro to review this document in 
parallel to AD evaluation. 

(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 concerns. 
After 4+ years of work on Directory solution, this has been discussed at
length and throughly in WG.  

(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.

IPR filed:
This filing was before the WG LC. 

Yizhou LI

Radia Perlman

Linda Dunbar

Donald Eastlake
(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 

(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?   

Based on 4 years of work on directory service and lots of discussion, 
the consensus is strong with all parties agreeing on the solution set. 

(10) 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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

NITS - TBD on last draft 

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

No formal review for any criteria. 

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

yes  - RFC7357 - will be added by authors (version -05.txt) 

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No - this is new work. 

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA Actions 

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


(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 needed.