Support for Shortest Path Bridging MAC Mode over Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
RFC 7734

A point had been raised regarding the disclosure of IPR.  The shepherd explicitly checked with the working group -- there were no concerns raised.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/DBQmEuv-iQ1hkkd_Jtp4q7AxRlA
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/dTpr0PdkNhnrWEjafIaxEquiOQA

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Shortest Path Bridging, MAC Mode Support over EVPN) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled Services WG (bess)
to consider the following document:
- 'Shortest Path Bridging, MAC Mode Support over EVPN'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes how Ethernet Shortest Path Bridging MAC mode
  (802.1aq) can be combined with EVPN to interwork with PBB-PEs as
  described in the PBB-EVPN solution. This is achieved via
  operational isolation of each Ethernet network subtending an EVPN
  core while supporting full interworking between the different
  variations of Ethernet networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2085/

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

Proposed Standard is requested. It is indicated in the header.

(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 how Ethernet Shortest Path Bridging MAC Mode
  (802.1aq) can be combined with EVPN in a way that interworks with
  PBB-PEs as described in the PBB-EVPN solution. This is achieved via
  operational isolation of each Ethernet network subtending an EVPN
  core while supporting full interworking between the different
  variations of Ethernet networks.

Working Group Summary

  This document is a product of the L2VPN Working Group and was handed out to the BESS Working Group
  at the time of the closure of L2VPN.

Document Quality

  The Document is focused, well written, and provides the necessary information. 
  The WG has been polled on the existence (or plans) of implementations.
  The Document Shepherd is aware of one implementation plan.

Personnel

  Martin Vigoureux is the Document Shepherd
  Alvaro Retana is the Responsible AD

(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 Shepherd has done a detailed review of the Document.
The 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?

No such concern.

(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 specific portion of the Document needs such 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 specific concern.

(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.

Each author has stated not being aware of any undisclosed IPR relating to that Document.

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

IPR has been disclosed against an earlier version of this Document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2085/

(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?

Consensus is solid. The Document was both adopted and WG LCed with support from several members of the 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.)

No such threat.

(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.

ID Nits check is clean

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal reviews is required for this Document

(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 such normative references.

(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 downward 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.

This Document does not change the status of any existing 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. 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).

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA Section.
The IANA Section does not make any request to IANA. This consistent with the body of the 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 IANA registry defined/needed.

(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.

The Document does not contain such formal languages