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?

Proposed Standard status is requested as indicated on the title
page. This document modifies the TRILL protocol by specifying, with
backward compatibility, the use of previously reserved TRILL Header

 (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 specification provides for any Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN) marking in traffic ingressed by TRILL to be copied into the
TRILL Extension Header Flags Word [RFC7179]. It also enables
congestion marking by a congested transit TRILL switch in the TRILL
Header Extension Flags Word.  At TRILL egress, it specifies how any
ECN markings in the TRILL Header Flags Word and in the encapsulated
traffic are combined so that subsequent forwarding elements can see if
congestion was experienced at any previous point in the path from the

  Working Group Summary:

There was no particular controversy about this document. Although some
minor technical refinements were made during the WG process, the WG
appears to have been favorably disposed towards this work from the

  Document Quality:

No implementations of draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support-03. 
Document has been reviewed by RTG-DIR (QA review). 

     Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
     Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas
      RTG-DIR review: Loa Anderson 
Review 1:
Review 2:

Shepherd's report

 (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.

   Document has been reviewed for technical content against normative references. 
   (see shepherd's report email 

   ID-NITS have been, and the only nits is that the copyright year is 2015. 
   The shepherd has been backlogged with other work, and did not 
   get this reviewed promptly in December.  The first editorial revision from the 
   AD or the IESG will fix it. 

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

No concerns about the reviews of this document.

 (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.

Normal reviews for routing draft (rtg-dir, ops-dir, sec-dir) 
and any reviews AD feels is necessary for INT ECN. 

 (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 particular concernts.

 (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, see
   Bob Biscoe
   Donald Eastlake

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

No IPR disclosure has been filed against this document.

 (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?

WG had good initial discussions, and strong concurrent on technology. 

(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). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
     this check needs to be thorough.

Only ID nit complaint is that it noticed some pseudo-code and
suggested it might be bracketed with <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>
lines but this seems inappropriate for psuedo-code that is not
intended to be compiled.   <CODE-BEGINS> <CODE-ENDS> will also 
trigger YANG automatic review - which would be a mistake. 

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

There is a normative reference to
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines which is intended to be a Best
Current Practice.

(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.

There are no downward references.

(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.

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. 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.

The only IANA action required by this document is the allocation of
three bits in the TRILL Extended Header Flags for which a registry
already exists. This is clearly indicated in the IANA Considerations

(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

No new registries created.

(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.

Although there is a little pseudo-code, there is no mormal language
requiring validation in this document.