Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Smart Endnodes
draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-07-11
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-06-11
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-06-04
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-03-26
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2018-03-23
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-03-22
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2018-03-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-03-19
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-03-19
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-03-19
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-03-19
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-03-19
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-03-19
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-03-19
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-03-19
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-03-19
|
11 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-03-19
|
11 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS |
2018-03-19
|
11 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-03-18
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alvaro Retana has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-03-17
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-03-15
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2018-03-12
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-03-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-03-12
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-11.txt |
2018-03-12
|
11 | (System) | Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received |
2018-03-12
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-12
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-03-08
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'Team Will not Review Version' |
2018-03-08
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-03-08
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] Review in context at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3548 Smart Endnodes would not bring more security and vulnerability issues than the TRILL ES-IS security defined … [Ballot discuss] Review in context at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3548 Smart Endnodes would not bring more security and vulnerability issues than the TRILL ES-IS security defined in [RFC8171]. IMPORTANT: I think you need to discuss the security implications of checking and/or not checking the smart endnodes MAC address (a MAY in S 5.2). My understanding is that TRILL is kind of wishy-washy on MAC spoofing in general, but if you *do* have some sort of MAC enforcement in place but you don't enforce here, then this obviously bypasses that. Similar comments apply to the SmartHello filtering, I think. Smart-Hellos can be secured by using Authentication TLVs based on [RFC5310]. I concur with Ben that you should explain the consequences of doing this or not. |
2018-03-08
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] If SE1 wishes to correspond with destination MAC D, and no endnode entry exists, SE1 will encapsulate the packet as an unknown … [Ballot comment] If SE1 wishes to correspond with destination MAC D, and no endnode entry exists, SE1 will encapsulate the packet as an unknown Should D be shown on the diagram below? I don't see it. the same meaning as the Holding Time field in IS-IS Hellos [IS-IS] . A Smart Endnode and an Edge RBridge supporting Smart Endnodes MUST send a Smart-Hello at least three times during their Holding Ooh, bad break here at this period. o MAC(i): This is a 48-bit MAC address reachable in the Data Label given from the Smart Endnode that is announcing this APPsub-TLV. does "given from" mean something different than "sent by"? o When SE1 wishes to send a multi-destination (multicast, unknown unicast, or broadcast) to the TRILL campus, SE1 encapsulates the packet using one of the trees that RB1 has specified. I see this called "BUM" in other documents. This is a nit, but do you want to use consistent terminology? |
2018-03-08
|
10 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-03-08
|
10 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-03-07
|
10 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-03-06
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot comment] Support Alvaro's Discuss. |
2018-03-06
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-03-06
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2018-03-06
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART reviewer: All of section 4.3 is confusing as to … [Ballot discuss] This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART reviewer: All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really is. Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits called out in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe it would be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with F=1. Please make it clear both in the diagram and in the text what the expected lengths of the fields are -- I find it particularly confusing that the number of bits pictured doesn't align with the number of bits specified in the text per field. |
2018-03-06
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Please also look at the Gen-ART reviewer's other comments. |
2018-03-06
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-03-06
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2018-03-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-03-05
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-03-05
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot discuss] This document feels tightly coupled with draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap, even though there are no cross-references. If I understand the mechanisms correctly, a Smart Endnode … [Ballot discuss] This document feels tightly coupled with draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap, even though there are no cross-references. If I understand the mechanisms correctly, a Smart Endnode (discussed in this draft) can then do directory assisted encapsulation (described in draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap). In fact, the encapsulation/decapsulation seems to be the main motivation in defining a Smart Endnode. I think then that this document also falls short in the exploration of potential issues, so I am also balloting DISCUSS. The same cases that I pointed at for draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap [1] are applicable here -- with the added caveat that the Smart Endnode, in general, has other sources of information (learning, etc.), which means that there are potentially more doors to close. The Multi-homing Scenario (Section 6) adds some complexity to the ability to check whether the Ingress RBridge is set correctly in the encapsulation. It would be nice to explore this case a little further and highlight the issues as the topologies get more complex. As I wrote in [1], I don't think that there are easy mitigations for these issues, but at least mentioning them so that operators are aware of the risk would be enough to clear this DISCUSS. Given that the authors partially overlap, it may be a good idea to solve the issue in this document (which is the general case) and then just have the other one point this way. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/xZvEj_9FtSgHSp4DnKCVxr670gc/?qid=1e5a9496ac80237a3f7cc6aeea09d24d |
2018-03-05
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-03-03
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2018-03-02
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2018-03-02
|
10 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2018-03-02
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-03-02
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-03-01
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-03-01
|
10 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10.txt |
2018-03-01
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-01
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ting Liao , Radia Perlman , fangwei hu , Donald Eastlake |
2018-03-01
|
10 | fangwei hu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-01
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2018-03-01
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2018-02-28
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-02-28
|
09 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application Identifier 1 registry on the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/trill-parameters/ two, new values are to be registered as follows: Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: Smart-Parameters Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: Smart-MAC Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-02-27
|
09 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-09.txt |
2018-02-27
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-27
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ting Liao , trill-chairs@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , fangwei hu , Donald Eastlake |
2018-02-27
|
09 | fangwei hu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-27
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2018-02-26
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2018-02-26
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2018-02-22
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley |
2018-02-22
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley |
2018-02-21
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2018-02-21
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2018-02-20
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-02-20
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-06): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-06): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (TRILL Smart Endnodes) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document: - 'TRILL Smart Endnodes' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-03-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This draft addresses the problem of the size and freshness of the endnode learning table in edge RBridges, by allowing endnodes to volunteer for endnode learning and encapsulation/decapsulation. Such an endnode is known as a "Smart Endnode". Only the attached edge RBridge can distinguish a "Smart Endnode" from a "normal endnode". The smart endnode uses the nickname of the attached edge RBridge, so this solution does not consume extra nicknames. The solution also enables Fine Grained Label aware endnodes. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2069/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2054/ |
2018-02-20
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-02-20
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Susan Hares | version of shepherd's write-up document [2/24/2012] Date of shepherd's report: 2/19/2018 =============== TRILL Status: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … version of shepherd's write-up document [2/24/2012] Date of shepherd's report: 2/19/2018 =============== TRILL Status: (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? RFC type: Proposed standard. Why: It proposes changes to the TRILL encapsulation methodology when using smart endnodes volunteer to do endnode learning encapsulation/decapsulation of TRILL packetsw. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary This draft addresses the problem of the size and freshness of the endnode learning table in edge RBridges, by allowing endnodes to volunteer for endnode learning and encapsulation/decapsulation. Such an endnode is known as a "Smart Endnode". Only the attached edge RBridge can distinguish a "Smart Endnode" from a "normal endnode". The smart endnode uses the nickname of the attached edge RBridge, so this solution does not consume extra nicknames. The solution also enables Fine Grained Label aware endnodes. Working Group Summary: 1) 1st WG LC: 8/26 to 9/9/2016, extended to (10/4 to 10/18/2016) Problem/Resolution pots: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/lnaBIR2dToAH8imcKYHWAsgHVN4 Resolution: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=trill&q=smart+end+nodes 2) Shepherd's comments caused a version-05 Posting of -05.txt: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/82tCkCxuOnHRdRqP_YMKb6RCVfI [Shepherd Ack:] 3) July 2017 problem posting: (Donald Eastlakre) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/PX-oOfyyksgc4yPSYnAhQrrJtjc [posting of -06.txt] to fix Donald comments https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=trill&q=endnodes 4) Version 06 of the TRILL smart nodes Fixes the the issues in 2017 posting, and the hybrid "endnodes" complexity issue. The security considerations section provides the necessary security, but a query has been raised to the AD whether a summary of how this end node fits in other drafts. If the security ADs, are concerned with the group keying. the TRILL WG has a group keying solution (draft-ietf-trill-group-keying-01), and a specific adaptation of this to the draft-ietf-trill-link-gk-profiles-00.txt. If the security ADs feel this is important, they could adopt the draft-ietf-trill-group-keying-01 into the security dispatch area. Alia Atlas (AD) has spoken to the rtgwg area about taking on the trill-link-gk-profiles-00l.txt into the rtgwg for a parallel review. (Note this issue comes after the 1/19/2018 discussion with the Security ADs on routing security in routing drafts.] Document Quality a) Are there existing implementations of the protocol? This draft is part of the TRILL WG directory service work item. The lack of directory services was one of the major challenges deployments of TRILL have encounter in the field. This solution has prototype implementations in a few of the vendors. Protocol standards 1) RFC7978 - RBridge Channel Header Extension (secure tunnel method allows encapsulation of address information) 2) RFC 7961 - reporting of addresses for TRILL interfaces in ISIS application sub-TLV (replaces ARP/ND) 3) RFC8302 - mechanism to optimize ARP and ND traffic on TRILL campus 4) RFC 8171 - Edge Directory Assistance Mechanisms 5) Smart end nodes - reducing size of end-node table in rbridges by allowing "smart" endnodes to volunteer for ending node learning. 6) draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap-04 - encapsulation modification for data centers (passed WG LC) b) Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Directory service mechanism are currently implemented as proprietary fashions by every vendor that does some variant of TRILL (cisco, brocade, Huawei and others). Until we get a full standard solution approved, the existing vendors with "early TRILL" implementations have little reason to switch. Huawei is planning implementation for deployment. Other TRILL standard implementations may incorporate the directory services if standardized (E.g. IP Infusion) Personnel Document shepherd: Susan Hares AD: Alia Atlas 1st RTG-DIR QA-reviewer: Julien Meuric https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg02740.html The TRILL WG have not gotten a response regarding his review of the -06.txt version. Due to the time delays, I have resent the request this morning. It would be important for you to review his message and my response. (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. 1. 3+ [final review] 2. 2 rounds of AD review 3. 2 RTG-DIR AD reviews 4. IPR review 5. NITs revew 6. 4th and 5th reviews of the document 7. Reviews of the comments from the RTG-DIR 8. Discussion with security ADS on routing drafts - to determine approach (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? We did not 2nd RTG-QA review or a reponse to the -06.txt fixes for the reviews. I personally believe the problem is fixed. It would be good to get a security AD to review this early in the process to answer the following 4 questions. The WG answered "no" to all of these questions (a) - (d). a) Does this security section need to explain the risks of an end-node participating with secured hellos using authentication TLVs [RFC5310], TRILL ES-IS Security [RFC8171], ISIS general cryptographic security, and TRILL's general security considerations? The WG thought was to not repeat the thought and comments presented in these other drafts. TRILL vendors have been informed that the directory service solution takes the BGP approach of being a group of independent drafts. The WG believes that with TRILL security and authentication this end node is as secure as the main TRILL infrastructure and any IS-IS infrastructure. b) Does the draft need a summary of these mechanisms in the draft? If so this could be added in section 7. Otherwise, section 7 is very brief. If a security AD has a firm opinion, then the author will adapt. c) Should possible attack vectors for remote dual homed nodes be added to section 7? These attack vectors are similar for any stub ISIS/OSPF node. As you will note in the IESG review draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12, the potential attacks for stub ISIS/OSPF nodes or smart-end nodes may be slightly different than core nodes. However, this is a general case of problems. In general, I think this general attack vector belongs in a routing-area related draft relating to all IGPs (OSPF, ISIS, Babel) or IGP that support L2 forwarding (E.g. TRILL). d) Do you think this solution should be accompanies by a group keying protocol that works with TRILL? If os (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. Review of the ISIS registries was requested by 1st RTG-DIR. AD should review these comments in the initial review, and determine if the AD agrees with the shepherd that these issues have been closed off. Review of the security considerations section by the security ADs and/or security directorate is requested early. As the shepherd, I feel the solution is adequate, but in our last conversation with the security ADs (1/19/2018) - I became aware that 1 paragraph summary of this security plus a short description of risks might be appropriate. The shepherd has requested feedback from Routing AD and from the security ADs to follow-up on this point. (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. All discussions have been covered above. (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. We have 2 IPR disclosures https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes These disclosures have made since the individual drafts. The WG approved this draft through all the steps (adoption to WG LC) with these IPR disclosures. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes - IPR was disclosed prior to any WG LC and the WG has agreed to utilize this work. Individual IPR disclosures: Radia Perlman https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/SZl1BijtPRW-DxmA3XGdQD7jCOQ Fangwei Hu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/P-xOpr11pYWyMKChQeqdYY4XNfA Donald Eastlake: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/lnaBIR2dToAH8imcKYHWAsgHVN4 Ting Liao https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/jX5WC9eRExs3NUwG8UtV5XasaVg (Kesava Vijaya Krupakaran - moved to contributor due to lack of IPR stastement, but will be added here.) (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? WG total solution is supported. The discusion of the 6 drafts related to the directory service solution has gone on for 4+ years so at this time the responses are minimal. Authors are still strongly engaged. (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. See comments in #9. (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 thorough. NO nits. Yeah! (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 outside (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? All normative references have been published. (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. None (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. No changes to other document. (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). IANA Registries look reasonable. I recall sending these to IANA 1 year ago, but I could not find their approval email. (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. All registries are standard and have been previously created. IANA is asked to provide values within existing standard TRILL 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. Not needed. |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Susan Hares | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08.txt |
2018-02-19
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-19
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: fangwei hu , trill-chairs@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake , Ting Liao , Kesava Krupakaran , Radia Perlman |
2018-02-19
|
08 | Donald Eastlake | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-19
|
07 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-02-19
|
07 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-02-19
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Shepherding AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2018-02-19
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-03-08 |
2018-02-15
|
07 | Alia Atlas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-01-22
|
07 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-07.txt |
2018-01-22
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-22
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ting Liao , Radia Perlman , fangwei hu , Donald Eastlake , Kesava Krupakaran |
2018-01-22
|
07 | fangwei hu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-22
|
06 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-01-22
|
06 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-01-22
|
06 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-16
|
06 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-16
|
06 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-10
|
06 | Donald Eastlake | Added to session: IETF-100: trill Thu-1810 |
2017-09-27
|
06 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2017-08-02
|
06 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-06.txt |
2017-08-02
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-02
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kesava Krupakaran , Radia Perlman , fangwei hu , Donald Eastlake , Ting Liao |
2017-08-02
|
06 | fangwei hu | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-28
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version' |
2017-06-28
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Julien Meuric was rejected |
2017-05-31
|
05 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric |
2017-05-31
|
05 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric |
2017-05-31
|
05 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-31
|
05 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2017-05-31
|
05 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-03-25
|
05 | Donald Eastlake | Added to session: IETF-98: trill Mon-1520 |
2017-02-06
|
05 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-05.txt |
2017-02-06
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-06
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Kesava Krupakaran" , "fangwei hu" , trill-chairs@ietf.org, "Ting Liao" , "Donald Eastlake" , "Radia Perlman" |
2017-02-06
|
05 | fangwei hu | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-15
|
04 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-04.txt |
2016-02-16
|
03 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-03.txt |
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Susan Hares" to (None) |
2015-10-05
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Julien Meuric. |
2015-09-08
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric |
2015-09-08
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric |
2015-08-17
|
02 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-02.txt |
2015-05-24
|
01 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-01.txt |
2014-12-15
|
00 | Donald Eastlake | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-12-15
|
00 | Donald Eastlake | Notification list changed to "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> |
2014-12-15
|
00 | Donald Eastlake | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2014-12-15
|
00 | Donald Eastlake | This document now replaces draft-perlman-trill-smart-endnodes instead of None |
2014-12-15
|
00 | fangwei hu | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-00.txt |