Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

template for shepherd write (version: 1/9/2017) 
 Date of review: 2/8/2016, review in IETF LC (1/8/2017) 
  Last shepherd update:  1/13/2017 

1) type of RFC: Proposed standard (indicated on title page) 
2) Shepherd: Susan Hares
3) WG chairs: Jon Hudson and Susan Hares

Technical Summary

  This document describes mechanisms for providing directory service to
   TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) edge switches.
   The directory information provided can be used in reducing multi-
   destination traffic, particularly ARP/ND and unknown unicast
   flooding. It can also be used to detect traffic with forged source
   addresses.  Directory Service can utilize either a push or a pull mechanism. 

Working Group Summary

This document is the result of 3 years of intensive discussion. 
The WG consensus was complete even if the WG discussion at the
end of the three years was "Time to send this to IESG". 

Document Quality
The Shepherd's review at 2/8/2016
Authors response:
Shepherd's review of changes and acceptance of changes (minus 2 editorial nits)
Final resolution by Authors:

Shepherds post IETF LC review:
- Based on draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanism-10.txt 
+ Suresh Krishnan's comments on SEND in
This Shepherd review looked for SEND related information and anything unspecified.  

Routing QA reviewer (follow email thread for review)

AD review:

  Document Shepherd:  Susan Hares (WG co-chair) 
  Responsible Area Director: (Alia Atlas) 
  WG chairs: Susan Hares and Jon Hudson
  Routing QA Reviewer: Matthew Bocci  (July 2015) 

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

a) nits run
b) discussion with authors (see detail in Document quality) 
c) Assured that Routing QA review was responded to

(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? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No - no additional QA reviews outside of routing directorate. 
Normal final security-directorate, routing-directorate, GEN-ART, OPS-DIR reviews should be made. 

(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 issues to be concerned about.  
Directory assist is critical to standardize to advance TRILL.

(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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
3 IPR disclosures have been filed. The WG was informed regarding the IPR at WG LC.
irectory-assist-mechanisms> &id=draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms

for LC comments.

Authors knew of no additional IPR 
(see mail thread above) 
Radia Perlman
Linda Dunbar
Donald Eastlake III
Yizhou Li

(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 discussion after 3 years of work. 

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

No threats or conflict over this draft. 

(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

No nits 

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

None needed 

(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? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

[rfc7180bis]  - is the only normative reference not at RFC.
It is approved for publication and at the RFC Editor 

(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. 

 [ARP optimization] -  is in WG, WG LC (2/8 to 2/22/2016) 
[[ChannelTunnel]- has past WG LC (5 months, Awaiting QA Review). 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?  
No change to 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. 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).

IANA has previewed the 8 actions needed for this draft, and
indicated they have approved it. 

(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.

None of the 8 actions this draft suggests require an expert review. 

(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.

No XML code, no BNF rules, no MIB definitions in this draft.