Shepherd write-up version: 2/24/2012.
(1) RFC type: Proposed standard
status: On header.
Why?
(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
The IETF TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
protocol is implemented by devices called TRILL switches or RBridges
(Routing Bridges). TRILL includes a general mechanism, called RBridge
Channel, for the transmission of typed messages between RBridges in
the same campus and between RBridges and end stations on the same
link. This document specifies a method to send vendor specific
messages over the RBridge Channel facility.
Working Group Summary
Working group pushed for this draft even though
it came at the end of work. It provides a way for
TRILL vendors to send vendor specific messages.
This feature will allow the vendors to innovate
and then come back to IETF with "baked"
features for standardizing.
Document Quality
No protocol implementations, but it is an
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
(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.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. This is an extension of an earlier idea discussed by WG at length.
It would be good to get the normal reviews (OPS-DIR,
RTG-DIR, SEC-DIR, and GEN-ART).
(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. This is a TRILL mechanisms so normal reviews will be fine.
(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?
This is a good draft for the WG to end its work on.
It allows vendors to develop new features without
returning immediately to the IETF standardization.
(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://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/-HQ8v6g9G6LOfLbiNwI094H5nFY
Ayan Banerjee
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/XgNgozYhRTNJagX9TEWj11dlYBE
Yizhou Li + Weiguo Hao
(These two author was on Chinese New Year Holiday during the
end of the WG LC. This author will probably respond within a few days).
(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?
Solid because the vendors (IPInfusion and Huawei) and some
other vendors want a path forward for additions.
(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 - the push to get this in came from many directions.
(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.
(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.
(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?
No changes to exisitng 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.
IANA is requested to allocate TBD for the Vendor Specific RBridge
Channel Protocol from the range of RBridge Channel protocols
allocated by Standards Action.
IANA is requested to establish a registry as follows on the TRILL
Parameters web page indented under RBridge Channel Error Codes after
RBridge Channel SubError Codes:
Registry: Vendor RBridge Channel Error Codes
Registration Procedures: Standards Action
Reference: (This document)
Code Description Reference
---- ----------- ---------
0 No error This document
1 Message too short This document
2 Unknown OUI/CID This document
3 Unknown Sub-Protocol This document
4 Unknown Sub-Version This document
0x05-0x0F Unassigned -
0x10-0xFE Reserved for vendor use This document
0xFF Reserved 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.
IANA is requested to establish a registry as follows on the TRILL
Parameters web page indented under RBridge Channel Error Codes after
RBridge Channel SubError Codes:
Registry: Vendor RBridge Channel Error Codes
Registration Procedures: Standards Action
Reference: (This document)
Code Description Reference
---- ----------- ---------
0 No error This document
1 Message too short This document
2 Unknown OUI/CID This document
3 Unknown Sub-Protocol This document
4 Unknown Sub-Version This document
0x05-0x0F Unassigned -
0x10-0xFE Reserved for vendor use This document
0xFF Reserved This document
(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 additional reviews needed.