Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-nachum-sarp-10

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 17 March 2015 21:41 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, draft-nachum-sarp@ietf.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-nachum-sarp-10
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150317214138.29093.22143.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:41:38 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/q5fOLwFvntGGDhnUSFAoA5BHAvU>
Cc: iana@iana.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

The IESG has completed a review of draft-nachum-sarp-10 consistent with
RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Scaling the Address
Resolution Protocol for Large Data Centers (SARP)'
<draft-nachum-sarp-10.txt> as an Experimental RFC.


The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done 
in the NVO3 and PALS working groups, but this relationship does
not prevent publishing.



This work, like RFC 7342, has its origins in the ARMD working
group. That working group closed down, having produced just one
RFC, for lack of consensus on the need for or direction of any
solutions work.  Since the IETF has no active work in this area, it
cannot be claimed that this draft conflicts with any IETF efforts.
Furthermore, the IETF has published no work on solutions for
scaling ARP.
 
However, there are existing techniques using IETF protocols that
address the problem that this document seeks to solve and that do
not require this approach. Indeed, an existing deployed solution
places each data center in a separate L2 domain and connects them
with IP.

This, in itself, does not predicate against an experiment with
SARP, but the IESG needs to give clear guidance that other
solutions from within the IETF stable already exist. Therefore, the
IESG requests the ISE to include the following IESG note in this
document if it is published as an RFC.

   The IESG notes that the problems described in RFC 6820 can
   already be addressed through the simple combination of existing
   standardized or other published techniques including Layer 2 VPN
   (RFC 4664), proxy ARP (RFC 925), proxy Neighbor Discovery (RFC
   4389), IGMP and MLD snooping (RFC 4541), and ARP mediation
   for IP interworking of Layer 2 VPNs (RFC 6575).


The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-nachum-sarp/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nachum-sarp/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html 

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-nachum-… The IESG