Shepherd writeup
rfc7173-06

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 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?

Proposed Standard as indicated on the header page. While the draft doesn't specify new packet formats or code points, it does specify the standard way to run TRILL over a pseudo-wire. For such X-over-Y documents the IETF uses standards 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

   This document specifies how to interconnect a pair of TRILL
   (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) switch ports using
   pseudowires under existing TRILL and PWE3 (Pseudowire Emulation End-
   to-End) standards.

Working Group Summary

   A previous version of this document was presented in the PWE3 WG as
   draft-yong-pwe3-trill-o-pw-00; however, the PWE3 Chairs and AD decided
   that, since it specified a Native Service Processor (NSP) for the
   TRILL serice and did not change any PWE3 standards, it belonged in
   TRILL WG. So draft-yong-trill-o-pw-01 was adopted by the TRILL WG.

   This is a short, simple draft that corresponds to an explicit work
   item in the TRILL Charter. It has been thoroughly reviewed by
   Yaakov (J) Stein, a volunteer from the PWE3 WG from the PWE3
   perspective and by the Shepherd from a more general / TRILL
   perspective.

Document Quality

  Document has been reviewed and seems to be of good quality, There are no
  known implementations yet. The document is quite simple with no need for
  any special reviews.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Erik Nordmark
  Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon

(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.

   Reviewed the document and suggested some editorial clarifications (which were
   performed in -04).

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

   No.

(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.

   As stated above, was reviewed by Yaakov (J) Stein from a PWE3 perspective.
   The posting of the -00 WG draft and the WG last call was forwarded to the PWE3
   working group with an explicit request for a reviewer.

(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
concerns here.

   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.

   Yes.

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

   No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(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?   

   There is good consensus behind the document, even if only a subset of the
   TRILL WG participants care about running TRILL over pseudo-wires.

(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.) 

   No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

   No ID nits issues.

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

   No formal review needed.

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

    Yes.

(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?

    There are normative references to two drafts but they are already
    approved and in the RFC Editor's queue.

(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. 

   No downrefs.

(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.

   This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

   No IANA actions are needed, and this has been verified against the totality of
   the document.

(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.

   No new IANA 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.

    There are no such formal descriptions in the document.
Back