PROTO for draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees
(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 title page. This draft updates
the base TRILL 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:
In TRILL multicast data forwarding is based on IS-IS link state
routing. Distribution trees are computed based on the link state
information through Shortest Path First calculation. When a link on
the distribution tree fails, with the TRILL base standard a
campus-wide reconvergence takes place that can be time consuming and
may cause disruption to the ongoing multicast service. This document
specifies how to build backup distribution trees to protect links on
a primary distribution tree.
Working Group Summary:
Nothing particularly notable. There was consensus for advancing the
draft.
Document Quality:
The document has received thorough review and is of high quality.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
by the Document Shepherd.
See Shepherd review at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07759.html
The comments there have been resolved in the current -08 draft.
(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.
Routing QA review done 9/8/16 by Loa Andersson. Loa has confirms that
all his comments have been resolved.
(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.
No special concerns.
(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?
Disclosure messages posted by all authors. See emails:
Mingui Zhang:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07494.html
Pathangui Janardhanan
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07492.html
Ayan Banerjee:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07491.html
Anoop Ghanwani:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07489.html
Tissa Senevirathne:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07490.html
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
IPR disclosures.
No.
(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 has been sufficient support for the this draft at meetings and
on the mailing list from a variety of participants.
(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 nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
No such formal review required.
(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 is a normative reference to draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd which has
been judged to have WG consensus and is expected to advance soon.
(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.
There are no normative downward references.
(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 updates RFC 6325 as specified in Section 5.3.1.
(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).
The IANA Considerations were reviewed as part of the Shepherd review
of the document. All newly allocated values are indicated by "tbd"
followed by a digit and all appear to be properly allocated in the
IANA Considerations section.
(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 registries are created.
(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 such automated reviews required.