Shepherd writeup
rfc8385-08

Date of Shepherd review: 2/18/2018 

 (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?

Informational as noted on the title page. This document does not
change any existing 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:

   This document specifies methods to interconnect multiple Transparent
   Interconnection of Lots of links (TRILL) sites with an intervening
   MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS standards. This draft
   addresses two problems as follows:
   1) Providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that are
      separated by an MPLS provider network.
   2) Providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different
      tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network.

  Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

  Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?

Personnel:
     Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
     Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas

 (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.

a) requested and resolved 2 target reviews by MPLS related chairs
(Loa Anderson and Andy Mallis)
b) ID Nits
c) deep dive of technology in early days 
d) review of final document. 

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

No.  It just doesn't get any better than to get the MPLS gurus 
(Loa Anderson, Andy Mallis, and Matthew Bocci) to 
 reviewed this draft and suggest changes. 

 (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.

The draft was reviewed by Any Malis who is knowledgeable in MPLS and
his comments were resolved:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08043.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08055.html

 (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.  

 (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.

Yes:
   Mohammed Umair
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08158.html
   Kingston Smiler Selvaraj
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08166.html
   Donald Eastlake 3rd
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08159.html
   Lucy Yong
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg08168.html

 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

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?

Vendors in the WG (Huawei, IP Infusion, and others) wanted to have 
this informational draft in order to provide wisdom for customers. 
This draft provides a clear explanation for these customers on how 
to link two campuses via an MPLS provider network. 
TRILL deployments in Europe and Asia (Japan and India) 
originally asked for this type of insight.  

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
     discontent?

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.

None.

(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?

No.  Nits indicates things are fine. 

Please note this draft references the original ISO ISIS specification 
(ISO10589).  This is valid, but sometimes the NITS will complain. 

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
     3967)?

No.  

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
     existing RFCs?

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

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
     considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
     with the body of the document.

This document requires no IANA actions.

(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.

This document creates nonew 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 sections.
Back