Shepherd writeup
rfc7067-07

(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 as noted in the title page header. This is a broad
overview of the idea for TRILL Directory Assistance. The WG
consensus for this document indicates the TRILL WG intent to pursue
this technical course as a method for the reduction of
multi-destination traffic, but this document does not include
protocol specifications.

(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 contains a brief overview of difficulties cause by
multi-destination local network traffic, such as unicast frames
where the location of the destination is unknown or ARP/ND packets,
and a generic description of how to reduce such difficulties
through the use of push and/or pull directories. Data Centers are
frequently orchestrated by management software that maintains a
directory of the applications, Virtual Machines, IP and MAC
addresses in use and the switches to which they are attached. This
makes directory assistance to edge switches a reasonable strategy
for that case.

Working Group Summary:

The WG Last Call reviewers of this document include David Black,
Sam Aldrin, Erik Nordmark, and Yizhou Li. Some of their comments
suggested the removal of material not directly related to the main
topic of the document as well as other improvements. Those
suggestions were generally adopted. No parts of the draft were
particularly contentious.

Document Quality:

The document is of good quality. David Black's review was
particularly helpful and is very much appreciated.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jon Hudson
Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon

(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.

Several minor issues with clarity, grammar etc were found and corrected.
The Document showed up in good shape and all major issues has been
handled during earlier WG review. Overall the process went smoothly.

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

None.

(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 specific additional review required.

(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.

The adoption and approval of this document as informational
indicates WG approval of work to specify directory assistance
mechanisms as an optional way to reduce multi-destination traffic
in TRILL campuses. As a result, there are no specific concerns.

(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?

Yes.

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

Yes, see IPR Disclosure 2007. This disclosure has been brought to
the attention of the WG on many occasions, although it was
initially omitted in the WG Last Call. It was mentioned in the call
for the draft to be made a WG document (in that case, the same
disclosure but against the earlier personal draft version), posted
to the WG mailing list with an additional call for comments after
the WG Last Call, and specifically presented at the TRILL WG
meeting in Orlando at IETF-86 with a dedicated slide.

(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?

There is a good consensus for this document. This is most likely
due to extensive reviews, the resolution all comments in those
reviews on the mailing list as well as multiple presentations and
discussion at WG meetings.

(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.)

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.

None found.

(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 required.

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

Yes, although, as an Informational document, there are no Normative
References.

(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?

This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 registries.

This document does not create any 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.

This document uses no formal languages requiring such validation.
////////////////
Back