Form version: 24 February 2012.
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Jon Hudson and Donald Eastlake
AD: Ted Lemon:
(1) RFC type: Proposed Standard
Correct type because it is OAM for Fault management. (Standard Track on page)
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
This document specifies the TRILL OAM Fault management. Methods in this
document follow the IEEE 802.1 CFM (Continuity Fault Management) framework
and reuse OAM tools wherever possible. Additional messages are defined
and TLVs are defined for TRILL specific applications or where a different
set of information is required other than IEEE 802.1 CFM. This proposed
standard does update RFC 6325.
Working Group Summary
The WG has worked on the TRILL OAM FM within the working group, and with
the IEEE 802.1 task group. This solution provides a blended solution
between TRILL and 802.1 OAM. The final review 3/7 - 3/24 garnered
a editorial comments, but no significant technical comments.
The TRILL OAM FM has implementations begun in the Cisco, Huawei, and
other router companies (2-3). The co-authors on this draft are in
touch with the implementation teams at Cisco and Huawei, and in-touch
with some members of the 802.1 Working Group within the IEEE.
The document's text and logic is excellent. Even with the ~60 page
length, the shepherd found very few editorial issues.
(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 Shepherd did a detailed review resulting in the numerous changes
from draft version -03 to -04 to -05 including editorials, IANA
Considerations fixes, and reference updates. No technical changes were
made. (There is one remaining glitch, a single missing character in
one occurrence of "[RF7180]" that should be "[RFC7180]". This can be
fixed as part of AD review or the reslution of IETF Last Call
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the implementers are reviewing the document during coding and
debugging. Textual edits have been done by Tissa Senevirathne.
(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
IANA needs to review section 15. Shepherd/Secretary will request that
the IANA do an early review.
OPSDIR needs to review all of document. Shepherd/Secretary will request
that OPSDIR Do an early review.
RTGDIR should do a review of the OAM FM. Shepherd/Secretary will request
that RTGDIR do an early review.
Some members of the IEEE 802.1 WG have been reviewing this document,
and a key contributors (Norm Finn and Donald Eastlake) have worked on
(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?
No concerns. This draft demonstrates fine collaboration between the
some members of the IEEE 802.1 WG and TRILL.
(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.
WG LC on IPR was issued on 4/14/14 and all authors have now
responded. Cisco disclosed IPR https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2082/
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
IPR 2082 filed:
Cisco is the owner of US Published Patent Applications 20120014261
and 20110194403 relating to the subject matter of "TRILL Fault Management" .
Cisco wil not assert patent on usage if other company does not assert patents.
[mutual patent assertion] if this becomes a standard.
(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 consensus of those implementing. Current silence occurs after
2-3 years of discussions.
(10) No appeals, no disconnect, only - this is done!
NITS - Miscellaneous warnings:
1) Warning - but this does not have work before 2008
2) document - 53 days in past -
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
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Document needs IANA, OPSDIR, and RTRDIR Review.
Early reviews will be requested.
All References are normative or informative. All normative references
are specified, and no normative reference is downward.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
This updates RFC 6325, and this is listed.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
To the Best of The shepherd's review, the registries are correctly specified.
Due to the number of IANA assignments, an early review will be requested.
(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.
New registry created in Section 15.4 for return codes for PTR (Path
Trace Reply) messages, uses IETF Review so no new Expert required.
section 15.1 TRILL-VER Sub-TLV Capability Flags - IETF review
CF OAM IETF Parameters registry set up by
draft-eastlake-iana-cfm-considerations-02.txt with assignment by
Standards Action. This section requests assignment of OpCodes from
this new registry. This section requests assignment of TLV Types from
this new registry.
section 15.3 requests 2 MACs from the IANA MAC ADDRESS Block.
This block requires expert review (Donald Eastlake, Dan Romascanu)
(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 XML, no BNF, No Mib.