Subject: [trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension-04

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:27:08 -0700

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension-04
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:26:36 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
CC: Trill Chairs <[email-masked]>

		       TRILL: Header Extension
		draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension-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?

   Proposed Standard as indicated in the title page header. This
   document specifies some additional flags for the extension part of the
   TRILL 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

    The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) base
    protocol specifies minimal hooks to safely support TRILL Header
    extensions. This document specifies an initial extension providing
    additional flag bits and specifies two of those bits, plus the
    Critical Channel Alert Flag used by the channel draft.

Working Group Summary

   There was rough consensus in the working group in favor of the document,
   with one relatively strong dissenter. The main point of the dissenter
   was that the material in this draft is not needed to provide an
   RBridge channel that can be used for BFD and error reporting, hence
   the extensions are speculative on future standardization that would make
   use of them. The WG neverless wants to proceed with this document.

Document Quality

   The document has been carefully reviewed in the WG and by the document
   shepherd. There are no known implementations of the additional
   Critical Channel Alert Flag specified in this document.

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 its
   dependencies to and from rbridge-channel and rbridge-bfd.

(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?

   No,

(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 refers to section 3 in the body of
   the document for the initial content of the new subregistry, and
section 3
   is consistent with the description in section 2.

(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.

   A new subregistry is created by this document called
   "TRILL Extended Header Flags", but allocations are subject
   to Standards Action and not Expert Review.
   Hence no experts are needed.

(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.