Subject: [rbridge] FYI: Please publish draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-af-04.txt

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:52:45 -0700

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-af-04.txt
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:29:36 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
CC: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

Ralph,

There is TRILL WG consensus to advance
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-af-04.txt as a proposed standard. Here is the
PROTO statement.

    Erik

----

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
       Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
       document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
       version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

    Erik Nordmark is the Document Shepherd.
    I have reviewed the document and believe it is ready.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
       and from key non-WG members?

    I believe the review has been good. Earlier versions of the document
    received good comments from both TRILL and IS-IS WG participants (we
    cc'ed the last call to the IS-IS WG).

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
       needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
       e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
       AAA, internationalization or XML?

    No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
       issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
       and/or the IESG should be aware of? Has an IPR disclosure
       related to this document been filed?

    No specific concerns. No IPR disclosure has been filed for this
    document.

(1.e) 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 consensus for the document is solid.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
       discontent?

    No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
       document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
       and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Has the document
       met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
       Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

    Yes. idnits reports 4 warnings related to the TRILL and IS-IS having
been issued as RFCs, and the ID hasn't been updated since then.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
       informative? Are there normative references to documents that
       are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
       state?

    References are split into normative and informative. Normative
    references include IEEE and ISO standards.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
       consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
       of the document?

    Yes. (No IANA actions are needed.)

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
       document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
       code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
       an automated checker?

    N/A.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
       Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
       Announcement Write-Up:

  Technical Summary

    TRILL supports multi-access LAN (Local Area Network) links that can
    have multiple end stations and RBridges attached. Where multiple
    RBridges are attached to a link, native traffic to and from end
    stations on that link is handled by a subset of those RBridges called
    Appointed Forwarders, with the intent that native traffic in each
    VLAN (Virtual LAN) be handled by at most one RBridge.  The purpose of
    this document is to improve the documentation of the Appointed
    Forwarder mechanism.

  Working Group Summary

    There was consensus in the document to advance this document after
    previous versions had elicited requests for clarifications and
    changes from both TRILL and IS-IS.

  Document Quality

    There are interoperable implementations of TRILL that were developed
    without the benefits of this additional document. The assumptions is
    that future implementors will benefit from the additional level of
    detail in this document.

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge