Shepherd writeup
rfc7456-08

Date: 6/15/2014
Shepherd write-up (version 2/24/2012)
AD: Ted Lemon
WG Chairs: Donald Eastlake and Jon Hudson
Shepherd: Susan Hares 

(1) type of RFC: Proposed standard.
Why appropriate: OAM relating to standard TRILL. 
RFC updated: none since this is new OAM Features. 
document format: states standard track. 



(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

 Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect of Operations,
 Administration and Maintenance (OAM). It allows network operators to
 verify the Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided to customers, and
 to detect network anomalies. This document specifies mechanisms for
Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement in TRILL networks.

Working Group Summary

Discussion on this topic has gone on for the last 2 years. 
During the WG LC and discussion at the March IETF 89, the general
consensus was "document is ready for RFC". 

Document Quality

 The written text of this document is high.  The performance monitoring
 issues clearly specified with clear descriptions of the mechanisms.   
 This document is a pleasure to read! 
  
 The document has been co-authors by two groups implementing the 
 code for deployment (Cisco and Huawei).  The careful attention to
 operational issues have shows in this draft.   No specific announcement
 of the release date for  these TRILL PM implementations has been
 made.  An implementation survey planned for June so a better
 understanding of the deployments may align with the IESG review. 
 Other vendors have indicated consideration of the PM specification. 
 

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  
  a) review of document for technical and editorial issues
  b) review of the WG lists messages, and IETF meetings
  c) nits run on the document. 

RTRDIR (from Carlos Pignataro) provided review of the draft, and the authors updated the security section.  OPSDIR (Victor Kuarsingh) has it on its list, but suggested the PM review already done was the significant review. 

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

No, the implement-review cycle is the best review possible. 
The textual review has been done by WG chairs, shepherd, RTRDIR, and the PM group for OPSDIR.  

(5) Broader Review: An Early review of this document should be done by:
 The general OPSDIR is still pending, but should complete soon. 

(6) Specific concerns for this document: None 

(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) IPR Disclosures none: 
Authors responding to IPR query: Tissa Senevirathne, Donald Eastlake, 
Taz Mizrahi, and S. Salam, and D. Kumar.  

(9) WG issues/10 WG appeal looming on horizon: 
Consensus: Strong
Discussions in IETF were detailed and WG seems to agree.
The strong implementation link seems to give WG assurance.

No Appeal is looming. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  1 bogus, 1 date Q, 3 References 
nits: warning for 
Missing Reference: 'RF7180' is mentioned on line 423, but not defined - will get fixed in -06 version. 

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

Reviews done by RTDIR and PM DIR have been completed. The general OPSDIR is still pending. 
 

(13/14/15/16)  Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All reference normative or informative. 
All normative except TRILL-FM have hit RFC. TRILL-FM will be
forwarded in package. 

Downward normative reference to OAM-Framework is appropriate 
in Shepherds opinion. 

No RFC changes state due to this document. 

(17) IANA considerations

The OpCodes utilize the same OpCodes as Y.1731 as follows:

      OpCode   OAM packet
      value    type
      ------   ----------

      45       1DM

      46       DMR

      47       DMM

      53       1SL

      54       SLR

      55       SLM

Since these opcodes are pre-assignment to Y.1731, there is no registry
utilized.  

(18) IANA new registries: 
None used

(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.

Back