draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-06.txt
Document Shepherd Write-Up
(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?
Experimental.
The document describes a layer 2 over layer 3 encapsulation technology
(VXLAN) for addressing the requirements of virtualised data centres with
multi-tenancy. VXLAN has already been widely implemented but deployment
is ongoing. As a solution it does not fit within the existing IETF WG
charters, but an early documentation of it is needed for the information
of the community, particularly that part developing Internet Standards
for multi-tenant data centres (e.g. the NVO3 WG). This community needs
to refer to VXLAN when developing gap analyses of solutions vs.
NVO3 requirements. As such, publishing this draft now as experimental
would greatly assist the community in assessing the suitability of this
technology.
(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 describes Virtual eXtensible Local Area
Network (VXLAN), which is used to address the need for overlay networks
within virtualized data centers accommodating multiple tenants. The
scheme and the related protocols can be used in cloud service provider
and enterprise data center networks.
Working Group Summary
This draft is not the product of an IETF working
group. However, the protocol that it describes is intended to address
the problem statement and requirements developed by the NVO3 working
group. This working group is not currently chartered to develop
solutions, but is chartered to investigate whether existing solutions
meet its requirements. In order to do this, the working group felt that
VXLAN, as documented in this draft, should be published in its current
form to enable the NVO3 gap analysis to address it. However, there was
not consensus to publish the draft as an NVO3 working group document.
Therefore the WG accepted the proposal for the draft to be published
through AD sponsorship.
Document Quality
This document describes the current state of a protocol
for which multiple implementations have been indicated. The document is
well written and appears to document the protocol adequately so that
other members of the wider community could implement it. Furthermore,
the quality of the documentation appears to be adequate to use as an
informational reference from other standards track documents developed
by the IETF. I therefore have no concerns
about the quality of the
document.
The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would
need review.
Personnel
The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci.
The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant.
(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.
The document has been reviewed by the document shepherd and some minor
comments addressed. The document is now ready for forwarding to the
IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The document has received adequate review, with the reservation that
given it is not a WG document, it has not gone through WG last call. The
document shepherds review was sent to the NVO3 and L2VPN WG lists, and
comments requested.
(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
(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.
Yes. The authors have all indicated that they are not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
IPR disclosures.
None filed.
(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?
This is not a WG document. However, the NVO3 WG is aware of the
document and the fact that it will be progressed as an individual
submission. The document is referred to by NVO3 WG drafts. There is
consensus for this publication path.
(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.)
None indicated.
(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.
There are no ID Nits issues.
Note that the draft has 8 co-authors listed at the top. This exceeds
the current RFC editor guidelines. This situation has been discussed
with the authors of the draft, and I believe that in this case the
list of authors at the top of the draft does realistically reflect the
individuals who made a substantial contribution to the draft.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal
review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
There are no formal review criteria.
(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?
There are no normative references.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
There are no normative references.
(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.
There are no changes proposed to the status of existing RFCs.
(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 has allocated UDP port 4789 from the Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number Registry for use by VXLAN.
(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.
There are no requests for new IANA 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 sections of the document that use formal languages.