Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup


This document is the Document Shepherd Write-Up
for draft-irtf-sdnrg-layer-terminology-00 as required by
RFC 4858.

(1).    The SDNRG is requesting that this document be published
        as an Informational RFC.

(2).    Document Approval Write-Up

        Technical Summary:

        Software-Defined Networking (SDN) can be defined as a new
        approach for network programmability.  Network
        programmability in this context refers to the capacity to
        initialize, control, change, and manage network behavior
        dynamically via open interfaces as opposed to relying on
        closed-box solutions and their associated proprietary
        interfaces.  SDN emphasizes the role of software in
        running networks through the introduction of an
        abstraction for the data forwarding plane and, by doing
        so, separates it from the control plane.  This separation
        allows faster innovation cycles at both planes as
        experience has already shown.  However, there is
        increasing confusion as to what exactly SDN is, what is
        the layer structure in an SDN architecture and how do
        layers interface with each other.  This document
        addresses these questions and provides a concise
        reference for SDNRG and the wider SDN community based on
        relevant peer-reviewed literature, the RFC series, and
        relevant documents by other standards organizations.

        Working Group Summary:

        It is worth noting that while there was some minor
        dissonance, there was general consensus around this
        document. In addition, being an IRTF document the
        requirements for consensus are looser.

        Document Quality:

        (i).    No protocol specified, hence no implementations
        (ii).   Similarily, no protocol specified so nothing for
                vendors to implement.
        (iii).  Spencer Dawkings did a thorough (IRSG) review. In
                addition, there was lively discussion/review from
                the RG.
        (iv).   No MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review

        Document Shepherd: David Meyer
        Responsible AD:    Lars Eggert

(3)     Document review by Shepherd

        Having been one of the authors, I have been intimately
        involved in the development of the document. The document
        is ready for publication.

(4).    No concerns about the depth or breath of reviews.

(5).    Since the document is an informational document outlining
        an approach to describing SDN terminology, no additional
        wider reviews are required.

(6).    No specific concerns with the document.

(7).    The document is in full conformance with the provisions
        of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

(8).    No IPR disclosures required as no protocol specified.

(9).    The document has good consensus (noting here again that
        the requirementn for consensus in the IRTF is somewhat
        less formal than in the IETF). The document includes the
        following text:

          The first version of this document was published in
          July 2013.  Subsequently, updated versions were
          presented during the SDNRG meetings at IETF 88, IETF
          89, and IETF 90 and have been reviewed, commented, and
          discussed extensively for more than one year by the
          vast majority of SDNRG members, which certainly exceeds
          100 individuals.  It is the consensus of SDNRG that
          this document should be published in the IRTF Stream
          RFC Series [RFC5743].

(10).   No threatened appeals. I will say that the ONF folks
        wanted to substitue their document wholesale for this
        one; to that end we included the following citation:

         [ONFArch] Open Networking Foundation, "SDN Architecture,
                   Issue 1", June 2014,

(11).   Document passes id-nits and has modern/correct

(12).   Since this is an Informational document and doesn't
        specify a protocol, MIB, or media type, item (12) does
        not apply.

(13).   All references have been identified as Informative

(14).   Item (14) does not apply; no normative references.

(15).   See (14).

(16).   Publication of this document will not change the status
        of any existing RFC.

(17).   The document makes no requests to the IANA.

(18).   See (17).

(19).   No MIBs, XML, BNF (or the like) specified, so (19) does
        not apply.