Subject: [rbridge] Publication Request for draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt

From: Donald.Eastlake at motorola.com (Eastlake III Donald-LDE008)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:24:01 -0500

We request that "TRILL Routing Requirements in Support of RBridges",
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt
be published as an Informational RFC. Below is the PROTO form.

Donald & Erik (co-chairs, TRILL)

   (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?

Donald Eastlake 3rd.
Yes.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The working group is quite active in reviewing documents and this
document had WG consensus and passed WG Last Call. No specific review by
non-WG members occurred.

Working Group Last Call:
Initiation:
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/2006-October/001458.html
Conclusion:
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/2006-November/001776.html

   (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?  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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

This high level document has a normative reference to the Rbridge
architecture document which is not at the same state of maturity.
However, as discussed with the Responsible AD, a request to publish is
being made at this time. Per the TRILL charter we need this document to
be able to formally select the routing protocol to use, which formally
needs to precede a routing group WG doing their extensions. It is also
believed that foreseeable changes to the architecture document are
unlikely to require changes to this less detailed document.

The following royalty free reciprocal type IPR disclosure relates to all
work in the TRILL WG including this document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=439
There has been no discussion of IPR for this document in the working
group that I can recall

   (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?

There is a broad consensus.

   (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

There are no nits but one warning that the document does not have an
"intended status" section and one warning that the normative reference
"might" be a downref (which it is not).

   (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?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are split. "The Architecture of an RBridge Solution to
TRILL"
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt
by the same author is a normative reference not yet ready for
advancement but not a downward reference. See answer 1.d above.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes. No IANA actions.

   (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?

Yes. There are no such sections.

   (1.k)  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

RBridges provide the ability to have an entire domain, with multiple
physical links, look to IP like a single subnet. The design allows for
zero configuration of switches within an RBridge domain, optimal
pair-wise routing, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary
loops, and potential additional advantages as well.  The design also
supports VLANs, allows forwarding tables to be based on destinations
within the RBridge domain (rather than station destinations, allowing
internal forwarding tables to be smaller than in conventional bridge
systems).

The intent is to re-use one or more existing routing protocols to
accomplish these goals.

This document lays out the background and specific requirements of
potential routing protocols to be considered for use in this design. In
particular, this document defines what is needed to accommodate this
design using IS-IS (or OSPF) as a basis for RBridge protocols.

          Working Group Summary

This document has working group consensus.

          Document Quality

This document is of good quality.

          Personnel

The Document Shepherd for this document is Donald Eastlake 3rd. The
Responsible Area Director is Mark Townsley.

  (end)