Subject: [trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-bfd-05.txt

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:13:59 -0700

This should probably have gone to the list - I'll make sure subsequent 
ones do.

    Erik

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-bfd-05.txt
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:15:54 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
CC: Trill Chairs <[email-masked]>

         TRILL: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Support
                  <draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-bfd-05.txt>

(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 the standard method of encapsulating the BFD
   protocol when used in conjunction with 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

    This document specifies use of the Bidirectional Forwarding
    Detection (BFD) protocol in RBridge campuses
    based on the RBridge Channel extension to the the TRILL
    protocol. BFD is a simple, widely deployed OAM mechanism in IP and
    MPLS networks, using UDP and ACH encapsulation respectively.  This
    document specifies the BFD encapsulation over TRILL.

Working Group Summary

   There was a clear consensus in favor of the document with the
   consensus determination made in late February. There was then some
   delay due to fixing various editorial problems and nits, many of
   which were discussed on the mailing list during the WG Last Call,
   but these have now been fixed.

Document Quality

   BFD and TRILL are both widely implemented although there have been
   no announced implementations of the BFD encapsulation for TRILL in
   this document. During the review period, the addition of some
   material to the Security Considerations section was suggested and
   adopted. See
   http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/2012-February/004768.html
   http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/2012-February/004819.html

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 on rbridge-channel and rbridge-extension.

   There are references to section 10 and section 4, which I think
   should both be references to section 7. I've told the authors that
   this nit can be deferred until the AD review has been done.

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

   No. See also item 5 below.

(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.

   Review related to the BFD aspects was identified. Notice of
   this document's working group last call was posted to the BFD WG
   mailing list and one of the co-authors of this draft is co-chair of
   the BFD WG and particularly knowledgeable in BFD.

(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.
   There is existing and disclosed IPR on the BFD base protocol.

(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.

   There is an ID-NITS error flags for a Normative Reference to RFC20
   (defining ASCII).
   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC   20

   That is the only RFC that defines ASCII. If desirable we can change it
   to a reference to:
USA Standard Code for Information Interchange, USAS X3.4-1967, United
States of America Standards Institute, July 7, 1967

(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 RFC 20 whose status, as a legacy,
   RFC is unknown, as noted above.

(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.

   See item 14 above.

(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 correctly lists the two code points
   required to be allocated. These are in a sub-registry of the TRILL
   Parameters registry. That sub-registry is created by
   draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-channel, a draft being advanced at the same
   time as this 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 or sub-registries are created by this draft.

(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.

---