type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why? Adds new subTLVs for unique nicknames
(specifically adds new subTLVs under the APPsub-TLV
under the ISIS-TLV 251)
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
TRILL routing can be extended to support multiple levels by building
on the multilevel feature of IS-IS routing. Depending on how
nicknames are managed, there are two primary alternatives to realize
TRILL multilevel: the unique nickname approach and the aggregated
nickname approach as discussed in [MultiL]. This document specifies a
unique nickname approach. This approach gives unique nicknames to all
TRILL switches across the multilevel TRILL campus.
Working Group Summary
Consensus strong on this methodology.
A word on TRILL WG:
TRILL working worked on the multi-level, multiple topology work
item together over the last 3+ years. The WG operates with
high discussion level at IETFs for these new features, and
individuals working hard on drafts between time.
During the last 12 months, early drafts in the
multi-level, multiple topology (E.g. RFC8243)
have been approved.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
Huawei and IPInfusion have TRILL implementations,
Scaling work was engaged in to aid long-term growth.
No implementations of this draft have been done.
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alia Atlas
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.
RTG-QA review: Julien Meuric
Authors altered Draft to address the issues.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Due to the WG methodology, no concerns.
RTG-QA review has been addressed.
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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. See earlier comments on this draft.
(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
a) draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel - needs to be revised to RFC8243,
but the RFC editor can do this
b) IDNITS - once again complains about ISIS (iso10589) reference
[it would be nice to fix that issue.]
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(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?
(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.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
IANA is requested to register one new flag bit
under TRILL-VER SUB-TLV Capabilities registry.
IANA requested to register 1 new type for NickBlockFlags
APPsub-TLV from range below.
(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.