Subject: [trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 17:14:32 -0700

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 17:10:56 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
CC: Trill Chairs <[email-masked]>

	   TRILL: Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates
		  draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

   Proposed Standard as indicated in the title page header. That is needed
   since this document updates RFC 6325, RFC 6327, and RFC 6439 which are
   proposed standards.

(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

    The IETF TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
    protocol provides least cost pair-wise data forwarding without
    configuration in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology, safe
    forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and support for
    multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic. TRILL
    accomplishes this by using IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate
    System) link state routing and by encapsulating traffic using a
    header that includes a hop count. Since the TRILL base protocol was
    approved in March 2010, active development of TRILL has revealed a
    few errata in the original RFC 6325 and some cases that could use
    clarifications or updates.

    RFC 6327 and RFC 6439 provide clarifications and updates with respect
    to Adjacency and Appointed Forwarders. This document provide other
    known clarifications, corrections, and updates to RFC 6325, RFC 6327,
    and RFC 6439.

    The clarifications, corrections, and updates cover many areas, but
the most
    substantial ones are in the areas of:
     - Overloaded and/or Unreachable RBridges
     - Distribution Trees
     - Nickname selection
     - Maximum Transmission Unit

    Note that one change in this document (section 3.4) is not backward
    compatible with  [RFC6325] but has nevertheless been adopted to reduce
    distribution tree changes resulting from topology changes.

Working Group Summary

   There was consensus in the working group in favor of the document.

Document Quality

   The document has been carefully reviewed in the WG and by the document
   shepherd.
   The document was forwarded to the IS-IS WG mailing list, which
   resulted in some additional improvements.

Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd?

      Erik Nordmark

   Who is the Responsible Area Director?

      Ralph Droms

(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.

   Reviewed the document.

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

   No.

(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.

   The -00 version of the draft was forwarded to the IS-IS list
   which resulted in comments from Mike Shand which were incorporated
   in the draft.

(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?

   None.

(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 IPR disclosures on this document.

(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 document has been discussed in the WG first as an individual draft
   and later as a WG draft with relatively broad participation. However,
   only a few commented on the actual WG last call.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

   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.

   While the abstract says "This document provide other
   known clarifications, corrections, and updates to RFC 6325, RFC 6327,
   RFC 6439." the id-nits tool generates comments to the effect that
   the "abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". I suspect that is
because
   the above "updates" text doesn't follow some unstated formatting
assumption
   in the id-nits tool.

   id-nits incorrectly generates a warning about a "non-RFC5735-compliant
   IPv4 addresses" for the text "... Section
   4.6.2.1"

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

   No formal review criteria apply.

(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?

   There is a normative reference to draft-eastlake-isis-rfc6326bis which
   is the formal definition of the IS-IS code points and formats.
   The plan is for that document to become an IS-IS WG draft and be reviewed
   in the IS-IS WG. That process has already been initiated.

(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?

   No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

   Verified that the three items in the IANA considerations section
   match the text in the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

   No new registries.

(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.

   None. No part of this draft is in a formal language.

---