Subject: [trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-channel-06

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:23:23 -0700

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-channel-06
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:18:00 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], "rdroms >> Ralph Droms" <[email-masked]>
CC: Trill Chairs <[email-masked]>

		    TRILL: RBridge Channel Support
		 draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-channel-06

(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. This
   document specifies how a channel (with associated code points) for
   carrying things like BFD and error reports for TRILL.

(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 TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325] provides for TRILL Data
    messages and TRILL IS-IS messages.

    This document specifies a general channel mechanism for the
    transmission of other messages within an RBridge campus, such as BFD
    (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection, [RFC5880]) and error messages,
between
    RBridges and end stations that are directly connected on the same
    link and between RBridges. This mechanism supports a requirement to
    be able to operate with minimal configuration.

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. There are currently no known implementations of the channel
   mechanism, but BFD and error reporting will drive their implementation.

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.

   Careful review of the whole document, including looking at
   dependencies to and from rbridge-bfd and rbridge-extension.

(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.

   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?

   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 consensus is reasonably broad.

(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.

   No issues.

(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 are normative references to draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension
   which is being advanced simultaneously and to
   draft-eastlake-isis-rfc6326bis whose move to an ISIS WG draft has
   been requested.

(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.

   The IANA considerations section lists the additional code points
   and multicast addresses, and also the three new sub-registries.
   The description of the sub-registries and their initial content is
   consistent with the rest of the docuument.

(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.

   The new subregistries do not require Expert Review.

(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.