(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?
This document is being requested as Informational becuase it
represents a description of architecture and other considerations.
It is not something that can be directly implemented.
This status is correctly noted on the title page.
(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:
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) has been one of the major buzz
words of the networking industry for the past couple of years. And
yet, no clear definition of what SDN actually covers has been broadly
admitted so far. This document aims at contributing to the
clarification of the SDN landscape by providing a perspective on
requirements, issues and other considerations about SDN, as seen from
within a service provider environment.
It is not meant to endlessly discuss what SDN truly means, but rather
to suggest a functional taxonomy of the techniques that can be used
under a SDN umbrella and to elaborate on the various pending issues
the combined activation of such techniques inevitably raises. As
such, a definition of SDN is only mentioned for the sake of
Working Group Summary
This is an individual submission not the product of a working
The authors have requested publication on the IETF stream with
The document was discussed within the SDNRG of the IRTF
from where useful feedback was gathered. One of the chairs
of the SDNRG and the chair of the IRTF have both confirmed
that they are OK with progressing this as an individual
This is an Informational I-D and not the subject of anything
that can be directly implemented.
This document has been reviewed by several individuals (refer
to the ACK section of the document).
The sponsoring AD reviewed the document and gave a
number of comments that led to updates.
Adrian Farrel (Adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the Document
Shepherd and 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
I have reviewed the document and discussed my issues with the authors.
This led to a new revision changing the tone of several points and
adding some additional material.
I have also discussed the document with the IRTF chair and with the
co-chairs of the SDNRG.
It is my opinion that this document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
Given the limited scope of this document, I have no concerns about the
reviews that have been performed.
(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
No further reviews needed.
(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 interested community has discussed those
issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.
As previously noted, this document was originally positioned in the
IRTF. There seems to be no issue with moving the document onto
As observed in the Technical Summary, this document reflects the
views of the authors speaking from within a network operator
environment. That makes the IETF consensus process principally
about it being OK to publish the document, not about the content of
the document although we anticipate that if there is a significant
concern about the content it will be raised during IETF last call.
(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 confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?
Not applicable. This document is not a product of an existing WG.
(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.)
(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.
idnits has no complaints about this document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar review applies to
(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
(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
interested community considers it unnecessary.
No impact on other 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).
This document does not require any action from IANA.
(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.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.