Shepherd writeup

template date:  24 February 2012.

(1)RFC: Proposed Standard 

(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 extensions to the IETF TRILL (Transparent
   Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol to support multi-topology
   routing of unicast and multi-destination traffic based on IS-IS
   (Intermediate System to Intermediate System) multi-topology specified
   in RFC 5120. This document updates RFC 6325 and RFC 7177.

Working Group Summary

Strong Consensus as part of the solution for 
 WG milestones on multiple topology. 

TRILL works differently than other WGs. 
It has brought up lots of drafts, and had deep engineering 
discussions at IETF.  The engineers go off and debate the 
topics one-on-one or individually.  
The depth of the engineering clue is high (e.g. Radia 
Perlman,  Donald Eastlake, Jon Hudson, Mingui Zhang, 
Ayan Banerjee, and others.  The WG simply does not 
waste time on fights or much email.  
So.. IESG, if you are looking for the email trail. 
It just is not going to be there - as you expect. 
If you look for engineering quality in this draft, 
you will find it. 

Document Quality
Engineering on Technology good. 
Document has been through strong editing by 
main author to remove "engineering-english". 

Donald Eastlake has been an editor for 
IEEE documents, you will find this influnces his style.
IESG - Please consider your review whether you are
complaining about style or substance. 


 Shepherd: Susan Hares 
 AD:  Alia Atlas 
 RTG-DIR early reviewer: Martin Vigoureux

(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.

a) Nits 
b) Review RTG-DIR reviewer 
only substantive concern was one definition:   MT TRILL Switch\
c) Review of final document. 

(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
took place.


(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?  


(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:

Mingui Zhang

 Ayan Banerjee

(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.  Again, the IESG will have trouble with the lack of substantive debate 
during the last year.  The TRILL WG took on several key pieces of work
(directory services, multi-topology enhancements, group key security). 
This working group has a solid engineering approach were we went off
did a bunch of drafts, discussed at IETF meetings the options and
went back and refined the documents.  The issues in the multiple topologies
are complex, but well know to the authors who come from 
two vendors that deployed early TRILL work. 

Again, the solution was debated and the draft approach set-up. 
Then, individuals took on writing the drafts and getting feedback. 
The result is a solid document - but little email.

Just warning you, it is not there.  
TRILL has solid engineering by quiet individuals
 goes against the list debate style. 

(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.) 

Nope - see comments in #9. 

(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

Again.  Two things are nitted - the fact the authors had this ready for 
the shepherd and it has sat behind other drafts. 
(mia culpa)
   [IS-IS] - ISO/IEC 10589:2002 - is correctly stated, but the NITS wonders.  
(sigh.. ) 

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

Security considerations are brief, but RFC6325 is there. 
If group keys are part of concern, see the protocol independent solution. 

We suggest that the Security Dispatch group take it over, and the
routing can provide a provide (draft-ietf-trill-link-gk-profiles-00) to the rtgwg. 
TRILL has engineered a solution, but we will need to have 
security area review.  

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

Yes -  
Please note that ISIS (ISO10589) sometimes gives the NITS program fits. 
It is correct, but NITS complains.  (sigh) 

(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?

(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?  
Updates: RFC6325, RFC 7177 

RFCs in header, abstract, and introduction. 

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

IANA section requests: 
1) the IEEE Registration Authority will be requested to allocate a new
   Ethertype for the MT label

2) assign two adjacent bits (TBD) from
   bits 14 through 31 of the Capabilities bits of the Port TRILL Version
   Sub-TLV for the Explicit Topology capability field and update the
   "PORT-TRILL-VER Capability Bits" registry as follows

(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.