Form: As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up (2/24/2012)
(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?
type: Proposed standard
Why: Specifies update to the campus-wide MTU feature specified in RFC6325 and RFC7177.
Title page: Indicates this.
(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:
The base IETF TRILL protocol has a TRILL campus-wide MTU feature,
specified in RFC 6325 and RFC 7177, that assures that link state
changes can be successfully flooded throughout the campus while being
able to take advantage of a campus-wide capability to support jumbo
packets. This document specifies recommended updates to that MTU
feature to take advantage, for appropriate link-local packets, of
link-local MTUs that exceed the TRILL campus MTU. In addition, it
specifies an efficient algorithm for local MTU testing. This document
updates RFC 6325, updates RFC 7177, and updates RFC 7780.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
WG consensus was reasonable.
Shepherd review of draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiations-05.txt
RTG-DIR review: Julien Meuric
No yang, XML, MIB, or security needed as expansion of existing function.
RTG-DIR review: Julien Meuric
Shepherd: Susan Hares
WG chairs: Susan Hares and Jon Hudson
AD: 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
1) review of document - considering the RFC6325 and RFC7177 features,
3) RTG-DIR review requested.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The only improvement can be an implementation of this feature.
(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
No. Even the need for a security review is low since the MTU only
provides an optimization of existing functionality to guess the
right MTU. If the MTU is too large, the packet will just get tossed
by the normal processing.
(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
No concerns. Actually, this is a rather clever optimization.
(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) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There is a Ericsson IPR filed that was posted on 6/14/2012
it was queried for on 8/26/2016:
And no additional IPR was found.
(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?
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No MIB, media type, URI.
Only note from shepherd's comment is for WG to recall to
add these features to the yang draft (pre-WG LC due to LIME).
(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?
All references are RFC or drafts being advanced (past WG LC).
The drafts past WG LC and not at RFC are:
draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis (in IETF LC)
(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. Just an addition.
(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 5226).
One parameter is requested to have assignment.
This parameter is listed as TBD in the document - so there is no conflict.
(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.
(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.
No automated checks required.