Skip to main content

Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
RFC 7796

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-05-27
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to RFC 7796
2016-03-16
11 (System) RFC published
2016-03-14
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-02-25
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-02-22
11 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2016-02-18
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-01-05
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-12-22
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-12-21
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-12-18
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-12-18
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-12-18
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-12-18
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-12-18
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2015-12-18
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-12-18
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-12-18
11 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2015-12-18
11 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2015-12-17
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-12-17
11 Yuanlong Jiang IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-12-17
11 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-11.txt
2015-12-10
10 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-12-04
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang.
2015-12-03
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-12-03
10 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

Could you explain a bit to me how prevention of leaf-to-leaf
communication is enforced? I wasn't clear about that from a quick
read, …
[Ballot comment]

Could you explain a bit to me how prevention of leaf-to-leaf
communication is enforced? I wasn't clear about that from a quick
read, sorry. (I know it might not be quite in scope, being an
implementation issue, but I'd like to know if it's easy to explain.)

Are there possible attacks on signalling - e.g. to send fake packets
saying some node is a root, when it's a leaf? If so shouldn't those
be recognised in the security considerations?

I think section 9 should describe the kind of node compromises that
would invalidate the "no leaf to leaf" protections that are needed
for this to work. The intent should be just to allow implementers to
realise when a node that they are designing or deploying might need
to be (better) protected against compromise. Were is possible to say
something useful about how to mitigate such compromises, that'd
be good too. (But it may amount to "harden your kit" I guess, which
could be enough to say if one knows which bits of kit need hardening
against what.)
2015-12-03
10 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-12-03
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-12-02
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
Sheng Jiang performed the opsdir review
2015-12-02
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-12-02
10 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-12-02
10 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Ben and Álvaro about the use of 2119 key words to talk about something that's normatively specified in a MEF …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Ben and Álvaro about the use of 2119 key words to talk about something that's normatively specified in a MEF document and not here.

Why does the first paragraph of the Introduction specifically mention MEF 6.1, with no reference provided?  There is a reference to MEF 6.2 (but it's not cited here).  Is something out of sync?  And if so, why is there no citation in the Introduction?

The MEF documents are cited in the Terminology section (with an incorrect citation to MEF6.1, which isn't in the references).  That tells me that they should be normative references, as they're providing definitions of terminology that has to be understood... but you have them as informative references.  Why?  (This comment is very close to a DISCUSS, but I'm not balloting it that way.)
2015-12-02
10 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-12-02
10 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-12-01
10 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
- Section 3, first paragaph:
This seems to use 2119 keywords to describe existing requirements from the referenced specification. Please avoid 2119 keywords …
[Ballot comment]
- Section 3, first paragaph:
This seems to use 2119 keywords to describe existing requirements from the referenced specification. Please avoid 2119 keywords for that (unless in the form of direct quotes).

-9:
Can you elaborate on how the prevention of leaf-to-leaf communication enhances security? As written, this seems to leave the actual enhancement for the reader to infer.

- 4, last sentence:
s/are/is
2015-12-01
10 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-12-01
10 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-11-30
10 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-11-30
10 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-11-30
10 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
Section 3. (Introduction) describes an E-Tree (as defined by the MEF) using rfc2119 keywords.  While the use of the keywords makes the description …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3. (Introduction) describes an E-Tree (as defined by the MEF) using rfc2119 keywords.  While the use of the keywords makes the description clearer, I don't think it is appropriate to use them as the text is describing what is defined somewhere else.  In other words, this document does not normatively define an E-Tree.  If parts of the description want to be emphasized, please use other means (or other words).

I don't think this comment raises to a DISCUSS level, but I think it needs to be addressed before publication.
2015-11-30
10 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-11-24
10 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-12-03
2015-11-24
10 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-11-24
10 Deborah Brungard Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-11-24
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2015-11-24
10 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-11-24
10 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2015-11-24
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2015-11-24
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-11-23
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-11-23
10 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-10.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-10.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA needs to complete.

First, the temporary assignment of value 0x1A in the Pseudowire Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type Registry in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

will be made permanent and the reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, the following status codes which have temporary registrations:

Range/Value E Description
------------- ----- ----------------------
0x20000003 1 E-Tree VLAN mapping not supported
0x20000004 0 Leaf to Leaf PW released

in the Status Code Name Space subregistry of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

will be made permanent and have the references will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Third, the temporary assignment of the value 0x0b in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

will be made permanent and the reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2015-11-16
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang
2015-11-16
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang
2015-11-13
10 Stewart Bryant
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 …
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?

Standards Track

It describes a protocol that is part of the L2VPN protocol suite.

(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

A generic Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) solution is specified
for Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) services which uses VLANs to indicate
root or leaf traffic. A VPLS Provider Edge (PE) model is illustrated
as an example for the solution. In the solution, E-Tree VPLS PEs are
interconnected by PWs which carry the VLAN indicating the E-Tree
attribute, the MAC address based Ethernet forwarding engine and the
PW work in the same way as before. A signaling mechanism for E-Tree
capability and VLAN mapping negotiation is further described.

Working Group Summary

Progress through the working group was unremarkable until the end,
when some discussion arose around the dynamic reconfiguration of
the etree. It was determined that there was no requirement for
seamless dynamic reconfiguration, although  there was a need to
be able to correct an incorrect configuration. Text was added to state
this constraint and to provide guidance on how to ensure that the
system automatically recovered to a state  of correct operation in
these circumstances.

Document Quality

There  is at least two implementation of this protocol.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Stewart Bryant.?
  The Responsible Area Director is  Deborah Brungard.

(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.

I performed a line by line review, and requested a number of changes
which were made by the authors.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. It has been reviewed by a number of experts in the area.

(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.

I am comfortable with this document.

(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.

The Chairs of L2VPN  took this action on 25/May/2014 immediately before
WGLC in the L2VPN WG. There was no new IPR declared over and
above that which was previously declared.

(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 filed, but not remarked about.

(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?

The L2VPN chair commented on a low level of comment, but the
given the history I think we should proceed with publishing.

(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.

(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.

    No nits found.

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

Not applicable.

(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.

There are no downrefs.

(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.

No. Not applicable.

(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 already allocated the codepoints and the IANA section
and the registry entries match.

(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.

None.

(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.

Not applicable
2015-11-12
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2015-11-12
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2015-11-12
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Gillmor
2015-11-12
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Gillmor
2015-11-12
10 Stewart Bryant
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 …
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?

Standards Track

It describes a protocol that is part of the L2VPN protocol suite.

(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

A generic Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) solution is specified
for Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) services which uses VLANs to indicate
root or leaf traffic. A VPLS Provider Edge (PE) model is illustrated
as an example for the solution. In the solution, E-Tree VPLS PEs are
interconnected by PWs which carry the VLAN indicating the E-Tree
attribute, the MAC address based Ethernet forwarding engine and the
PW work in the same way as before. A signaling mechanism for E-Tree
capability and VLAN mapping negotiation is further described.

Working Group Summary

Progress through the working group was unremarkable until the end,
when some discussion arose around the dynamic reconfiguration of
the etree. It was determined that there was no requirement for
seamless dynamic reconfiguration, although  there was a need to
be able to correct an incorrect configuration. Text was added to state
this constraint and to provide guidance on how to ensure that the
system automatically recovered to a state  of correct operation in
these circumstances.

Document Quality

There  is at least two implementation of this protocol.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Stewart Bryant.?
  The Responsible Area Director is  Deborah Brungard.

(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.

I performed a line by line review, and requested a number of changes
which were made by the authors.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. It has been reviewed by a number of experts in the area.

(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.

I am comfortable with this document.

(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.

The Chair of L2VPN  took this action.

(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 filed, but not remarked about.

(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?

The L2VPN chair commented on a low level of comment, but the
given the history I think we should proceed with publishing.

(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.

(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.

    No nits found.

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

Not applicable.

(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.

There are no downrefs.

(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.

No. Not applicable.

(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 already allocated the codepoints and the IANA section
and the registry entries match.

(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.

None.

(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.

Not applicable
2015-11-10
10 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-11-10
10 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree@ietf.org, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree.all@ietf.org, "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree@ietf.org, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree.all@ietf.org, "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" , pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)'
  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 2015-11-24. 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 specifies a generic Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
  solution which uses VLANs to indicate root or leaf traffic to
  support Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) services. A VPLS Provider Edge (PE)
  model is illustrated as an example for the solution. In the solution,
  E-Tree VPLS PEs are interconnected by Pseudo Wires (PWs) which carry
  the VLAN indicating the E-Tree attribute. The MAC address-based
  Ethernet forwarding engine and the PW work in the same way as
  specified in RFC 4762 and RFC 4448 respectively. A signaling
  mechanism is described to support E-Tree capability and VLAN mapping
  negotiation.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree/ballot/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1756/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2250/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1708/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2053/



2015-11-10
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-11-10
10 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2015-11-10
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2015-11-10
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2015-11-10
10 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-11-10
10 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2015-11-10
10 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Expert Review
2015-11-09
10 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-10.txt
2015-10-19
09 Deborah Brungard Notification list changed to "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree.all@ietf.org from "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
2015-10-14
08 (System) Notify list changed from "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" , "Stewart Bryant"  to "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar"
2015-09-22
09 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-09.txt
2015-08-20
08 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-08.txt
2015-08-20
07 Deborah Brungard Issues raised by Routing Area Directorate review need to be addressed.
2015-08-20
07 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from AD Evaluation
2015-06-02
07 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Lizhong Jin.
2015-05-20
07 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lizhong Jin
2015-05-20
07 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lizhong Jin
2015-05-20
07 Jonathan Hardwick Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-05-18
07 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-05-13
07 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Matthew Bocci
2015-05-13
07 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Matthew Bocci
2015-04-14
07 Stewart Bryant
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 …
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?

Standards Track

It describes a protocol that is part of the L2VPN protocol suite.

(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

A generic Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) solution is specified
for Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) services which uses VLANs to indicate
root or leaf traffic. A VPLS Provider Edge (PE) model is illustrated
as an example for the solution. In the solution, E-Tree VPLS PEs are
interconnected by PWs which carry the VLAN indicating the E-Tree
attribute, the MAC address based Ethernet forwarding engine and the
PW work in the same way as before. A signaling mechanism for E-Tree
capability and VLAN mapping negotiation is further described.


Working Group Summary

This was unremarkable.

Document Quality

There  is at least two implementation of this protocol.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Stewart Bryant.?
  The Responsible Area Director is  Deborah Brungard.

(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.

I performed a line by line review, and requested a number of changes
which were made by the authors.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. It has been reviewed by a number of experts in the area.

(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.

I am comfortable with this document.

(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.

The Chair of L2VPN did took this action.

(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 filed, but not remarked about.

(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?

The L2VPN chair commented on a low level of comment, but the
given the history I think we should proceed with publishing.

(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.

(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.

    No nits found.

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

Not applicable.

(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.

There are no downrefs.

(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.

No. Not applicable.

(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 already allocated the codepoints and the IANA section
and the registry entries match.

(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.

None.

(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.

Not applicable
2015-04-14
07 Stewart Bryant Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2015-04-14
07 Stewart Bryant IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2015-04-14
07 Stewart Bryant IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-04-14
07 Stewart Bryant IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-04-07
07 Stewart Bryant Changed document writeup
2015-03-31
07 Stewart Bryant Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2015-03-31
07 Stewart Bryant Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-03-31
07 Stewart Bryant Changed document writeup
2015-03-31
07 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-07.txt
2015-03-31
06 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-06.txt
2015-02-26
05 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-05.txt
2015-02-23
04 Stewart Bryant Please see:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pals/current/msg00185.html
2015-02-23
04 Stewart Bryant Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2015-01-27
04 Stewart Bryant Notification list changed to "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>, "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com> from "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
2015-01-27
04 Stewart Bryant Document shepherd changed to Stewart Bryant
2014-11-17
04 Andy Malis Notification list changed to "Dr. Nabil N. Bitar" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
2014-11-17
04 Andy Malis Document shepherd changed to Dr. Nabil N. Bitar
2014-11-16
04 Cindy Morgan Changed field(s): group,abstract
2014-09-29
04 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-04.txt
2014-04-07
03 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-03.txt
2013-11-13
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-02
2013-10-09
02 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-02.txt
2013-04-08
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-01
2013-02-06
01 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-01.txt
2012-09-12
00 Yuanlong Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-00.txt