Shepherd writeup

Template version: 2/24/2012 (per RFC4858) 
 Date of Revision: 2/8/2016 
WG LC: 5/29 to 6/12/2015

(1) What type of RFC: Proposed Standard
Why - specifies a TRILL IS-IS application sub-TLV 

(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 specifies a TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots
   of Links) IS-IS application sub-TLV that enables the reporting by a
   TRILL switch of sets of addresses. Each set of addresses reports all
   of the addresses that designate the same interface (port) and also
   reports the TRILL switch by which that interface is reachable. For
   example, a 48-bit MAC (Media Access Control) address, IPv4 address,
   and IPv6 address can be reported as all corresponding to the same
   interface reachable by a particular TRILL switch. Such information
   could be used in some cases to synthesize responses to or by-pass the
   need for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP), the IPv6 Neighbor
   Discovery (ND) protocol, or the flooding of unknown MAC addresses.

Working Group Summary

  No.  Working Group discussions indicate that this 
new application sub-tlv for TRILL ISIS was the best solution. 
This is part of the directory services set of drafts. 

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

No, and this draft is part of a 4 draft directory service dealing
 with directory services.  The four drafts are: 
 draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms () - describes the push/pull
 draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-05 - secure tunnel for directory push
 draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv-05 - reporting of addresses for TRILL interfaces
    in ISIS application sub-TLV (reduces/replaces need for ARP/ND )
 draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization - mechanism to optimize ARP and ND traffic
    on TRILL campus 

 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's review resulted in simplification of section 2. 

  No MIB, Media type or other expert review. 

 Document shepherd: Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Jon Hudson and Susan Hares
Area Director: Alia Atlas
(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) Shepherd did in in-depth review of the document resulting in 

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

 The WG and the Shepherd did in-depth review. 
 Two people provided additional reviews: Linda Dunbar and Gayle Noble.

 No RTG-Directorate person could be found to do a QA review for
 8 months after WG LC so this is going to the AD without a 
 Routing Directorate Review. 

(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.

Security directorate reviewer should pay attention to the use of 
EASDI or RBridge channel in the section 4 (Security concerns). 
The WG, authors, and the shepherd felt these features plus normal
ISIS security addressed the concerns. 

(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.


(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.

Donald Eastlake

Yizhou Li

(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?   

Solid consensus on this draft as part of the directory services 
solution. The complete directory services solution has been discussed
for 3+ years.  This general solution has been discussed during several 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? 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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

Only NIT is that this draft was last updated 50 days ago. 
It has been waiting for the RTG-Directorate review for 8 months after
WG LC.  It is being forwarded to AD without the Routing Directorate QA review. 

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

no additional review criteria. 

(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?

The ID-NITS lists ISO-10589 as a possible downref, but this is an error. 

Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO-10589'
(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 draft only adds a new sub-tlv to TRILL ISIS. 

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the

17-a) pre-Allocated AFN (section 5.1) 
 IANA has pre-allocated the following AFN values that may be useful for IA
   APPsub-TLVs which are listed in the document: 

              Hex    Decimal   Description      References
             -----   -------   -----------      ----------

              0001        1    IPv4
              0002        2    IPv6
              4005    16389    48-bit MAC       [RFC7042]
              4006    16390    64-bit MAC       [RFC7042]
              4007    16391    OUI              This document.
              4008    16392    MAC/24           This document.
              4009    16393    MAC/40           This document.
              400A    16394    IPv6/64          This document.
              400B    16395    RBridge Port ID  This document.

   Other AFNs can be found at

17b) section 5.2 - IANA requested to create 
  new subregistry of the TRILL  Parameter Registry 
   for sub-sub-TLVs of the Interface Addresses
   APPsub-TLV with initial contents as shown below.

      Name:       Interface Addresses APPsub-TLV Sub-Sub-TLVs

      Procedure:  Expert Review

      Note:  Types greater than 255 are not usable in some contexts.

      Reference:  [This document]

          Type      Description       Reference
         ------     -----------       ---------
             0         Reserved
             1         AFN Size          [This document]
             2         Fixed Address     [This document]
             3         Data Label        [This document]
             4         Topology          [This document]
      5-254        Available
           255        Reserved
 256-65534     Available
         65535      Reserved

17-d) IANA Review 

IANA is requested to allocate TBD1 as the Type for the IA APPsub-TLV
   in the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application
   Identifier 1" registry from the range under 256. In the registry the
   Name is "IA" and the Reference is this 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).

(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 following new registry requires expert review:

    IA APPsub-TLV Sub-Sub-TLVs SubRegistry
      Name:       Interface Addresses APPsub-TLV Sub-Sub-TLVs
      Procedure:  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.

none needed