Shepherd writeup
rfc7968-05

Template: Required by: RFC 4858, revision: 2/24/2012

Shepherd: Susan Hares 
AD: Alia Atlas 
Revision: 4/19/2016
Next Step: Revision to answer shepherd review, and 
Awaiting  IPR statements from: Weiquo Hao and S. Chatterjee. 


(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?

Type: 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

   TRILL uses distribution trees to deliver multi-destination frames.
   Multiple trees can be used by an ingress RBridge for flows regardless
   of the VLAN, Fine Grained Label (FGL), and/or multicast group of the
   flow. Different ingress RBridges may choose different distribution
   trees for TRILL Data packets in the same VLAN, FGL, and/or multicast
   group. To avoid unnecessary link utilization, distribution trees
   should be pruned based on VLAN and/or FGL and/or multicast
   destination address. If any VLAN, FGL, or multicast group can be sent
   on any tree, for typical fast path hardware, the amount of pruning
   information is multiplied by the number of trees; however, there is a
   limited capacity for such pruning information.

   This document specifies an optional facility to restrict the TRILL
   Data packets sent on particular distribution trees by VLAN, FGL,
   and/or multicast group thus reducing the total amount of pruning
   information so that it can more easily be accommodated by fast path
   hardware.

Working Group Summary

WG had discussion over 2+ years regarding data label based tree selection for multi-destination data.
The working came to a good consensus on this discussion 

Document Quality

No known implementation of this technology. 
Distribution trees, ECMP, and Fine-Grain Labels (FGL) exist in many implementation, 
and some proprietary technology has similar features.  

Shepherd review:  Text and technology 
Routing Directorate review: 
Document: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-01
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: Jan 07 2015
IETF LC End Date: September 2015 
Intended Status: Standard Track

(2) Personnel: 
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Routing WG chairs: Susan Hares and Jon Hudson
RTG-DIR reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
 

(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) RTG-DIR reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
 2) Shepherd review the document 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07204.html


(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.

No, just the general review. 

(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 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.

Donald Eastlake: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06964.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07095.html

Yizhou Li 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06968.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07099.html

H. Chen 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07100.html

Weiquo Hao: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07213.html

S. Chatterjee: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07211.html

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

1 IPR disclosure filed, before the WG LC 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2584/

No comment during WG LC. 

(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?   

Strong.  The Solution was discussed for 2-3 years. 

(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 https://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 need for formal review. 

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

(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?



(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 

(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 - This specifies new technology. 

(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 is regest to assign 5 new TRILL APPSub-TLV type code 
from range less than 255:
 
Name   of APPSub TLV code               Reference
=========================           ===========

   tbd1   Tree and VLANs                    [this document 3.2.1]
   tbd2   Tree and VLANs Used          [this document 3.2.2]
   tbd3   Tree and FGLs                        [this document 3.2.3]
   tbd4   Tree and FGLs Used              [this document 3.2.4]
   tbd5   Tree and Groups                    [this document 3.2.5]
   tbd6   Tree and Groups Used          [this document 3.2.6]

Update the TRILL Parameters registry as shown below.

         Type   Name            Reference
         ----   ----            ---------

         tbd1   TREE-VLANs     [this document]
         tbd2   TREE-VLAN-USE  [this document]
         tbd3   TREE-FGLs      [this document]
         tbd4   TREE-FGL-USE   [this document]
         tbd5   TREE-GROUPs    [this 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 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.

No other reviews. 
Back