Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC: Proposed standard 
a) Why is this the proper type of RFC? adds 2 TLVs to TRILLs APPsub-TLV.  
Must be standard to add these TLVs. 

Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  This draft is aimed at Proposed Standard as it specifies an
  aggregated nickname protocol for multilevel TRILL. (Informational
  RFC 8243 describes the difference between aggregated and unique
  nickname protocols for multilevel TRILL. RFC 8397 is the Proposed
  Standard for unique nickname multilevel TRILL and this draft is
  intended to become the Proposed Standard for aggregated nickname
  multilevel TRILL.)

(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 protocol for multilevel TRILL using a form
  of aggregated nicknames where level 1 areas are identified by the
  set of border RBridges connecting them to level 2. Nicknames can be
  re-used in multiple level 1 areas of this type while nicknames used
  in level 2, including by boarder RBridges, must be unique across the
  TRILL campus.

Working Group Summary 

  This document was adopted by the TRILL Working Group but that
  working group was dissolved before the document was progressed.
  The WG designed two approaches (unique nickname and an aggregated 
  nickname) and documented these in RFC8243.  The aggregated approach
  has discussed these improvements, but implementation "proof of 
  concepts" were considered useful prior to standardization. 

Document Quality 

  This document is of good quality.  

Document Shepherd: Susan Hares  (past TRILL co-chair + shepherd)
Responsible AD: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.

  The shepherd review the document for design that resolved many of the 
  issue brought up in the TRILL WG discussions.  Four problems were 
  considered in the TRILL WG:  
  1) appropriate multicast and broadcast distribution, 
  2) re-use of nicknames within an L1, 
  3) bridge/routers that handle multiple areas, 
  4) load balancing of traffic between TRILL Area border routers 
  The text of this draft solves all these problems. 

See the shepherd's review at:

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

  No.  This draft stands on the shoulders of lengthy discussions 
  and proposals within the TRILL working group prior to its closure. 
  I appreciate the authors completing this work.   
  LSR flexible algorithms work is rediscovering all of these issues
  as it decides how to handle multiple algorithms. 
  As far as the shepherd can tell, LSR has not detect any new issues.  

(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?

  No such additional review is needed. This draft has received two
  RTGDIR reviews (early and IETF Last Call), a SECDIR review, a GENART
  review, an AD review, and been through IETF Last Call.
  It just missed the last document flow through TRILL. 

(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.

Mingui Zhang
Donald Eastlake
Radia Perlman
Margaret Cullen
Honjun Zhai

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

  Yes, has been filed. There
  were no objections to the disclosure.
  The WG made an early decisions and repeated decisions to push 
  this technology with IPR to get traction in the market place.   

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

  There was a good consensus in the TRILL community for this draft. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme


(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 thorough.

  There are no nits other than some some values suggested to IANA in
  square brackets that are incorrectly thought to be possible
  references by the nits checker.

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

  No such formal review is required for this document.

(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?

  All references are to RFCs except for one reference to the ISO/IEC
  IS-IS standard.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC

  There are no downward normative references in this document.

(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?

  This document does not change the status of any other RFC.
(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.

  This document only requires the assignment of two new values in one
  already existing registry as documented in the IANA Considerations

(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.

  This document does not create any new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  There are no such formal languages used in this document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
( for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  There is no YANG in this document.