(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?
Standards Track as indicated on title page. This draft updates
Proposed Standard RFC 6325 as described in Appendix A.
(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:
ESADI (End Station Address Distribution Information) is an optional
protocol implemented at TRILL switches by which they can
communicate, in a Data Label (VLAN or Fine Grained Label) scoped
way, end station addresses and other information to TRILL switches
in the TRILL campus participating in ESADI for that Data Label.
This document updates the specification of the ESADI protocol that
appears in RFC 6325, the TRILL base protocol specification, and is
not backwards compatible because it changes the format of
Working Group Summary:
There was no particular controversy. Before the initial WG Last Call
on the -02 draft there was a late IPR disclosure filed. There were
WG Last Call comments leading to editorial and technical changes
resulting in the 03 draft which was determine to have WG consensus.
The -03 draft increased the number of fragments in an ESADI-LSP and, as a
result of document Shepherd review, the WG was asked if it wanted
to change to the standard method for doing this which was
progressing as draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp. Based on WG support for this
change, a -04 draft was produced and a 2nd WG LC starting on 27
November 2013. During this WG LC a specific technical problem with
a corner case was uncovered and it was suggested that an expanded
explanation of how this document will update the TRILL base
specification [RFC6325] should be included. A fix to this technical
problem and the expanded "updates" explanation were included in in
the -05 draft which was WG Last Called on 8 Feb 2014 and determined
to have consensus.
The shepherd doesn't know of existing implementations. There has been
significant review of this document on the TRILL WG mailing list with
multiple WG last calls.
Document Shepherd: Erik Nordmark
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 shepherd re-reviewed the documents in its entirety. The document
is ready for publication.
(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
(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 special 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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
See IETF IPR disclosure 2064. Specific attention was drawn to this
disclosure in the WG Last Call announcement.
(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?
The working group consensus is solid.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
iscontent? If so, please summarise 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.
No idnits warnings other than the expect downref ones (for IS-IS, FIPS180,
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
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 completion?
This document has normative references to three drafts. Of those,
two from the TRILL WG are already in the RFC Editor's queue. The
third is in WG Last Call in the ISIS WG.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
There are no downward normative references, but there are
references to three non-IETF standards: ANSI X3.4-1968 (ASCII),
FIPS 180-4, and ISO/IEC 10589:2002 (IS-IS).
(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?
The document updates RFC 6325, as listed on the title page, but
does not change the status of RFC 6325 which will remain a Proposed
(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
The IANA considerations section specifies the creation of three new
sub-registries and is consistent with the body of the document. The
sub-registries have reasonable names, initial content, and a specified
allocation procedure (IETF Review).
(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.
The document does not create any Expert Review allocations.
(It does create new sub-registries within the TRILL Parameters
Register which require IETF 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.
The document does not use any such formal languages.