Skip to main content

Framework and Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
RFC 9062

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-06-30
10 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9062, changed title to 'Framework and Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9062, changed title to 'Framework and Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)', changed abstract to 'This document specifies the requirements and reference framework for Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM).  The requirements cover the OAM aspects of EVPN and Provider Backbone Bridge EVPN (PBB-EVPN).  The framework defines the layered OAM model encompassing the EVPN service layer, network layer, underlying Packet Switched Network (PSN) transport layer, and link layer but focuses on the service and network layers.', changed pages to 16, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-06-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2021-06-30
10 (System) RFC published
2021-06-30
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-06-21
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-05-11
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-04-21
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2021-04-16
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-04-16
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-04-16
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-04-16
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-04-16
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2021-04-16
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2021-04-16
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-04-16
10 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2021-04-16
10 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-04-16
10 Martin Vigoureux Ballot approval text was generated
2021-04-15
10 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-10.txt
2021-04-15
10 (System) New version approved
2021-04-15
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Donald Eastlake , John Drake , Sam Aldrin , Samer Salam
2021-04-15
10 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2021-04-12
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-04-12
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2021-04-12
09 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-09.txt
2021-04-12
09 (System) New version approved
2021-04-12
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Donald Eastlake , John Drake , Sam Aldrin , Samer Salam
2021-04-12
09 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2021-04-12
08 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Here's the text of my previously-a-discuss for reference:

Section 2.3:

  EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring
  capabilities. As such, …
[Ballot comment]
Here's the text of my previously-a-discuss for reference:

Section 2.3:

  EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring
  capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they
  exhibit identical entropy characteristics to data traffic in order
  that they share the same fate.

It’s not obvious to me what you mean by “identical entropy characteristics to data traffic”. Surely, different flows may have different entropy characteristics, so, *which* data traffic? Similarly, with which data traffic are you saying the OAM messages must share fate?

Donald proposed:

How about something more like:
EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring capabilities. OAM messages SHOULD be encoded so that they exhibit similar entropy characteristics to data traffic in order maximize the fate sharing between OAM and data.

That's fine. (s/in order maximize/in order to maximize/)

I'm switching to "no objection" in anticipation of the document being updated.

Previous comment:

Thanks for the clear and readable document. I have one nit and one question.

1. Section 1, nit:

“EVPN is an Layer 2” s/an/a/
2021-04-12
08 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2021-04-08
08 (System) Changed action holders to Donald Eastlake, Ali Sajassi, Martin Vigoureux, Samer Salam, John Drake, Sam Aldrin (IESG state changed)
2021-04-08
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2021-04-08
08 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.

It's a bit unclear to me whether the descriptions/definitions of MIP/MEP/MA/MD are coming from CFM or RFC 6136 …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.

It's a bit unclear to me whether the descriptions/definitions of MIP/MEP/MA/MD are coming from CFM or RFC 6136.  Section 1.1 suggests that they are coming from CFM (but without a normative reference to 802.1Q), but the terminology implies that they are being taken from RFC 6136.
Certainly, there seem to be places in this document where more meaning of these terms seems to be expected than what is provided in the terminology section.  Section 2.6 refers to CCMs, but I think that a reader would only understand what these are if they have read CFM.  Hence, I think that this document would probably benefit from having a normative reference to 802.1Q rather than informative.

Minor comments:

    2.1 OAM Layering

    "and shows which devices have visibility into what OAM layer(s)."

Perhaps indicate by the 'o' symbol. Otherwise the fact that the Link OAM is the end point of the physical links, whereas the other OAM endpoints are may cause confusion.

Figure 2:
- Would it be helpful to move the 'o' marks to the end of the PE devices, to line up with the Link OAM end points?

- Is "Service CFM" the right term here?  Does this mean "Service OAM - CFM"?

- Probably helpful to add an informative reference to 802.3 Link OAM, which is in figure 2.

2.2 EVPN Service OAM

- I'm not sure how clear "towards the device" is when the point is already within the device.

- The up and down arrows for the MEPS ("^" and "V") seem to potentially make Figure 3 more confusing.  Also "down" should be changed to "Down" in the last CE.

Nits:

I'm not sure why the PE nodes are numbered by CE nodes are not.

Regards,
Rob
2021-04-08
08 Robert Wilton Ballot comment text updated for Robert Wilton
2021-04-08
08 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.

It's a bit unclear to me whether the descriptions/definitions of MIP/MEP/MA/MD are coming from CFM or RFC 6136 …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.

It's a bit unclear to me whether the descriptions/definitions of MIP/MEP/MA/MD are coming from CFM or RFC 6136.  Section 1.1 suggests that they are coming from CFM (but without a normative reference to 802.1Q), but the terminology implies that they are being taken from RFC 6136.
Certainly, there seem to be places in this document where more meaning of these terms seems to be expected than what is provided in the terminology section.  Section 2.6 refers to CCMs, but I think that a reader would only understand what these are if they have read CFM.  Hence, I think that this document would probably benefit from having a normative reference to 802.1Q rather than informative.

Minor comments:

    2.1 OAM Layering

    "and shows which devices have visibility into what OAM layer(s)."

Perhaps indicate by the 'o' symbol. Otherwise the fact that the Link OAM is the end point of the physical links, whereas the other OAM endpoints are may cause confusion.

Figure 2:
- Would it be helpful to move the 'o' marks to the end of the PE devices, to line up with the Link OAM end points?
- Is "Service CFM" the right term here?  Does this mean "Service OAM - CFM"?
- Probably helpful to add an informative reference to 802.3 Link OAM, which is in figure 2.

2.2 EVPN Service OAM

- I'm not sure how clear "towards the device" is when the point is already within the device.
- The up and down arrows for the MEPS ("^" and "V") seem to potentially make Figure 3 more confusing.  Also "down" should be changed to "Down" in the last CE.

Nits:

I'm not sure why the PE nodes are numbered by CE nodes are not.

Regards,
Rob
2021-04-08
08 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2021-04-07
08 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
Might be helpful to expand C-MAC and B-MAC on first use.

"MD" appears in your Terminology section, but nowhere else in the document.
2021-04-07
08 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-04-07
08 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Melinda Shore for the SECDIR review.

Section 4.  Since Section 2.2 described a process where the “EVPN PE MUST learn …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Melinda Shore for the SECDIR review.

Section 4.  Since Section 2.2 described a process where the “EVPN PE MUST learn the MAC address of locally attached CE MEPs by snooping on CFM frames ...”, is there is reason not to add the DoS caution from [RFC4762] of “Some means to limit the number of MAC addresses ... that a PE can learn SHOULD be implemented.”
2021-04-07
08 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-04-07
08 John Scudder
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.3:

  EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring
  capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.3:

  EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring
  capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they
  exhibit identical entropy characteristics to data traffic in order
  that they share the same fate.

It’s not obvious to me what you mean by “identical entropy characteristics to data traffic”. Surely, different flows may have different entropy characteristics, so, *which* data traffic? Similarly, with which data traffic are you saying the OAM messages must share fate?
2021-04-07
08 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clear and readable document. I have one nit and one question.

1. Section 1, nit:

“EVPN is an Layer 2” …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clear and readable document. I have one nit and one question.

1. Section 1, nit:

“EVPN is an Layer 2” s/an/a/
2021-04-07
08 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2021-04-07
08 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clear and readable document. I have one nit and one question.

1. Section 1, nit:

“EVPN is an Layer 2” …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clear and readable document. I have one nit and one question.

1. Section 1, nit:

“EVPN is an Layer 2” s/an/a/

2. Section 2.3:

  EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring
  capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they
  exhibit identical entropy characteristics to data traffic in order
  that they share the same fate.

It’s not obvious to me what you mean by “identical entropy characteristics to data traffic”. Surely, different flows may have different entropy characteristics, so, *which* data traffic? Similarly, with which data traffic are you saying the OAM messages must share fate?
2021-04-07
08 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2021-04-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review.

Nits/comments:

* P-MAC and C-MAC are these defined somewhere else? References …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review.

Nits/comments:

* P-MAC and C-MAC are these defined somewhere else? References would be nice here.

* Section 1.3,  Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 describes P nodes in different ways and that has created confusion to me. Can this be well defined in the terminology section once and just be used in other place?

* Section 2.5 : "[802.3]" is this supposed to be a reference? it leads to nowhere.

* Section 3.1.1.2.1 : first time encountered "network management station (NMS)", if this document is not introducing it then I would suggest to at this to section 1.3 and add some descriptive texts, otherwise define it.

* Section 3.1.2.1 : would be nice to expand MTU.

* Section 3.2.1: I  can't really parse - "EVPN Network OAM SHOULD provide mechanisms for measuring packet loss for a given service [RFC7680] [RFC6673]." are these IPPM mechanisms recommended to be used for EVPN networks? or are those merely examples?
2021-04-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot comment text updated for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2021-04-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review.

Nits/comments:

* P-MAC and C-MAC are these defined somewhere else? References …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review.

Nits/comments:

* P-MAC and C-MAC are these defined somewhere else? References would be nice here.

* Section 1.3,  Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 describes P nodes in different ways and that has created confusion to me. Can this be well defined in the terminology section once and just be used other place?

* Section 2.5 : [802.3] is this supposed to be a reference? it leads to no where.

* Section 3.1.1.2.1 : first time encountered "network management station (NMS)", if this document is not introducing it then I would suggest to at this to section 1.3 and add some descriptive texts.

* Section 3.1.2.1 : would be nice to expand MTU.

* Section 3.2.1: I  can't really parse - "EVPN Network OAM SHOULD provide mechanisms for measuring packet loss for a given service [RFC7680] [RFC6673]." are these IPPM mechanisms recommended to be used for EVPN networks? or are those merely examples?
2021-04-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot comment text updated for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2021-04-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review.

Nits/comments:

* P-MAC and C-MAC are these defines somewhere else? References …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document and thanks to David Black for TSVART review.

Nits/comments:

* P-MAC and C-MAC are these defines somewhere else? References would be nice here.

* Section 1.3,  Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 describes P nodes in different ways and that has created confusion to me. Can this be well defined in the terminology section once and just be used other place?

* Section 2.5 : [802.3] is this supposed to be a reference? it leads to no where.

* Section 3.1.1.2.1 : first time encountered "network management station (NMS)", if this document is not introducing it then I would suggest to at this to section 1.3 and add some descriptive texts.

* Section 3.1.2.1 : would be nice to expand MTU.

* Section 3.2.1: I  can't really parse - "EVPN Network OAM SHOULD provide mechanisms for measuring packet loss for a given service [RFC7680] [RFC6673]." are these IPPM mechanisms recommended to be used for EVPN networks? or are those merely examples?
2021-04-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2021-04-07
08 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated).

I hope …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Minor regret for a doc shepherd write-up, which is dated 9 months ago...

-- Section 1 --
Introducing C-MAC and B-MAC could be useful for the reader.

-- Section 1.3 --
Slighlty puzzled by MA/MEP/MIP as those are only about the M of OAM. Should those be OAMA, OAMEP, OAMIP ? Or at least should there be some explanations ?

-- Section 2.2 --
I must confess my lack of knowledge about CFM frames but I am puzzled by "snooping on CFM frames and advertising them to remote PEs as a MAC/IP"
1) if the CFM frame are not IP, then how can it be advertised in a MAC/IP ? (i.e., the CE may not use IP at all)
2) if the CFM frame are IP, then which version of IP ? and how to recognize them ?
Or did I miss something obvious ?

-- Section 3.1.2.1 --
Does this section cover OAM designed by other WG ? E.g., draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data or draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

-- Section 3.2.1 --
Mostly the same comment as for 3.1.2.1, this section is only about synthetic traffic injection.
2021-04-07
08 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2021-04-06
08 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2021-04-06
08 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08.txt
2021-04-06
08 (System) New version approved
2021-04-06
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Donald Eastlake , John Drake , Sam Aldrin , Samer Salam
2021-04-06
08 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2021-04-06
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
All comments below are very minor change suggestions that you may choose to
incorporate in some way (or ignore), as you see fit. …
[Ballot comment]
All comments below are very minor change suggestions that you may choose to
incorporate in some way (or ignore), as you see fit. There is no need to let me
know what you did with these suggestions.

The following URLs in the document failed to return content:
* http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts
2021-04-06
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2021-04-05
07 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
[ section 2.4 ]

* Up to you if you want to include ICMPv6 [RFC4443] in the list of
  applicable …
[Ballot comment]
[ section 2.4 ]

* Up to you if you want to include ICMPv6 [RFC4443] in the list of
  applicable mechanism.

  =)

[ section 3.1.1.2+ ]

* I can't tell what the mandatory to implement behaviour is.  3.1.1.2 says
  that implementations MUST support event-driven defect indication which
  can be categorized into two types.

  Both types say they SHOULD be supported.  If the overall behaviour is
  a MUST, shouldn't one of these be MTI?  Or is that not important and the
  point is that any implementation MUST choose at least one to support?
2021-04-05
07 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-04-05
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-04-03
07 Melinda Shore Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. Sent review to list.
2021-03-27
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2021-03-27
07 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-07.txt
2021-03-27
07 (System) New version approved
2021-03-27
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Donald Eastlake , John Drake , Sam Aldrin , Samer Salam
2021-03-27
07 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2021-03-26
06 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to David Black for the tsvart review, and for the authors addressing his comments.

Sec 2.2 It would help to define "up" …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to David Black for the tsvart review, and for the authors addressing his comments.

Sec 2.2 It would help to define "up" and "down" connections.

Sec 3.2.1 & 3.2.2. I am not sure of the extent which IPPM metrics and methods can apply to these layers. But there are some references that can guide loss, delay, and jitter measurements:

Loss: RFC 7680, RFC 6673

Delay: RFC 7679, RFC 2681

Jitter: RFC 3393

I encourage the authors to peruse IPPM's published RFCs on datatracker to see if other documents would be similarly useful.
2021-03-26
06 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2021-03-25
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2021-03-25
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2021-03-22
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2021-03-22
06 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-04-08
2021-03-19
06 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-06.txt
2021-03-19
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Donald Eastlake)
2021-03-19
06 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2021-03-19
05 Martin Vigoureux Ballot has been issued
2021-03-19
05 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2021-03-19
05 Martin Vigoureux Created "Approve" ballot
2021-03-19
05 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Vigoureux (IESG state changed)
2021-03-19
05 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2021-03-19
05 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was changed
2021-02-17
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2021-02-17
05 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-05.txt
2021-02-17
05 (System) New version approved
2021-02-17
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Donald Eastlake , John Drake , Sam Aldrin , Samer Salam
2021-02-17
05 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2021-02-17
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Stig Venaas. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2021-02-16
04 David Black Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: David Black. Sent review to list.
2021-02-16
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2021-02-15
04 Melinda Shore Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. Sent review to list.
2021-02-15
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2021-02-15
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry 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, we do not object.

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

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2021-02-15
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Stig Venaas.
2021-02-08
04 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to David Black
2021-02-08
04 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to David Black
2021-02-05
04 David Schinazi Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: David Schinazi. Sent review to list.
2021-02-05
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Schinazi
2021-02-05
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Schinazi
2021-02-04
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2021-02-04
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2021-02-04
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2021-02-04
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2021-02-02
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stig Venaas
2021-02-02
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stig Venaas
2021-02-02
04 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2021-02-02
04 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-02-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Matthew Bocci , bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-02-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Matthew Bocci , bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, matthew.bocci@nokia.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (EVPN Operations, Administration and Maintenance Requirements and Framework) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - 'EVPN Operations, Administration and
Maintenance Requirements and
  Framework'
  as Informational RFC

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-02-16. 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 the requirements and reference framework for
  Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM).
  The requirements cover the OAM aspects of EVPN and PBB-EVPN.  The
  framework defines the layered OAM model encompassing the EVPN service
  layer, network layer and underlying Packet Switched Network (PSN)
  transport layer.





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



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2021-02-02
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2021-02-02
04 Martin Vigoureux Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2021-02-02
04 Martin Vigoureux Last call was requested
2021-02-02
04 Martin Vigoureux Last call announcement was generated
2021-02-02
04 Martin Vigoureux Ballot approval text was generated
2021-02-02
04 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was generated
2021-02-02
04 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2020-12-01
04 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2020-12-01
04 Martin Vigoureux Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2020-07-09
04 Jenny Bui Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci
Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-frmwk-04

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this …
Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-frmwk-04

(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?

Informational. This is properly 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 specifies the requirements and reference framework for
  Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM).
  The requirements cover the OAM aspects of EVPN and PBB-EVPN.  The
  framework defines the layered OAM model encompassing the EVPN service
  layer, network layer and underlying Packet Switched Network (PSN)
  transport layer.

Working Group Summary:

EVPN is an becoming widely adopted as a technology for implementing layer 2 VPNS.
OAM is required to aid in the maintenance of EVPN and to make it deployable
by service providers. There is strong consensus that this work is required by the BESS
working group, and this draft is required to set the context for determining the
applicability of existing OAM protocols or making extensions or indeed defining new ones.
Theer was no particularly controversial aspects to the draft.

Document Quality:

EVPN is widely implemented and deployed. This draft is an informational set of
requirements and a framework to guide the development of OAM for EVPN and as such
does not require implementations in its own right, yet.

The draft received a number of comments during WG last call which were addressed.

I have no concerns about the quality of the document.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com)
Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com)

(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 reviewed Version 3 of the draft. I had a few minor editorial comments which
were addressed in Version 4.

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

No concerns. The draft was reviewed by a number of participants during WG last call
and comments addressed.

(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 formal reviews required.

(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 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.


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

No disclosures.

(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?

There is solid consensus behind the daft. There were a significant number
of participants who indicated support during WG LC who are not co-authors.


(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.


ID nits passes.

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

No formal review requirements.

(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?

All normative references are to published RFCs.


(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

(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 require a change to the status of any existing document.

(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 8126).


There are no IANA actions.

(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, YANG modules,
etc.

There are no sections written in a formal language.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The document does not define any YANG modules.
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2020-07-09
04 Matthew Bocci
Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-frmwk-04

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this …
Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-frmwk-04

(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?

Informational. This is properly 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 specifies the requirements and reference framework for
  Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM).
  The requirements cover the OAM aspects of EVPN and PBB-EVPN.  The
  framework defines the layered OAM model encompassing the EVPN service
  layer, network layer and underlying Packet Switched Network (PSN)
  transport layer.

Working Group Summary:

EVPN is an becoming widely adopted as a technology for implementing layer 2 VPNS.
OAM is required to aid in the maintenance of EVPN and to make it deployable
by service providers. There is strong consensus that this work is required by the BESS
working group, and this draft is required to set the context for determining the
applicability of existing OAM protocols or making extensions or indeed defining new ones.
Theer was no particularly controversial aspects to the draft.

Document Quality:

EVPN is widely implemented and deployed. This draft is an informational set of
requirements and a framework to guide the development of OAM for EVPN and as such
does not require implementations in its own right, yet.

The draft received a number of comments during WG last call which were addressed.

I have no concerns about the quality of the document.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com)
Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com)

(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 reviewed Version 3 of the draft. I had a few minor editorial comments which
were addressed in Version 4.

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

No concerns. The draft was reviewed by a number of participants during WG last call
and comments addressed.

(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 formal reviews required.

(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 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.


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

No disclosures.

(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?

There is solid consensus behind the daft. There were a significant number
of participants who indicated support during WG LC who are not co-authors.


(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.


ID nits passes.

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

No formal review requirements.

(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?

All normative references are to published RFCs.


(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

(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 require a change to the status of any existing document.

(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 8126).


There are no IANA actions.

(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, YANG modules,
etc.

There are no sections written in a formal language.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The document does not define any YANG modules.
2020-07-08
04 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-04.txt
2020-07-08
04 (System) New version approved
2020-07-08
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Sam Aldrin , John Drake , Donald Eastlake , Samer Salam
2020-07-08
04 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2020-07-03
03 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-03.txt
2020-07-03
03 (System) New version approved
2020-07-03
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Samer Salam , John Drake , Sam Aldrin , Donald Eastlake , Ali Sajassi
2020-07-03
03 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2020-06-15
02 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2020-06-15
02 Matthew Bocci Notification list changed to Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
2020-06-15
02 Matthew Bocci Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci
2020-01-01
02 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02.txt
2020-01-01
02 (System) New version approved
2020-01-01
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sam Aldrin , John Drake , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Donald Eastlake
2020-01-01
02 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2019-07-08
01 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01.txt
2019-07-08
01 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sam Aldrin , John Drake , Samer Salam , Ali Sajassi , Donald Eastlake
2019-07-08
01 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision
2019-02-26
00 Matthew Bocci This document now replaces draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk instead of None
2019-02-26
00 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-00.txt
2019-02-26
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2019-02-25
00 Donald Eastlake Set submitter to ""Donald E. Eastlake" ", replaces to draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk and sent approval email to group chairs: bess-chairs@ietf.org
2019-02-25
00 Donald Eastlake Uploaded new revision