[trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-bfd-05.txt
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Fri, 11 May 2012 16:14 UTC
Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1EB21F8688 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZqyIZJJXLs6w for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A220A21F8513 for <trill@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.22.63] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id q4BGDxQW020750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 May 2012 09:13:59 -0700
Message-ID: <4FAD3AC7.4030500@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:13:59 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
References: <4F9AB82A.5060901@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F9AB82A.5060901@acm.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4F9AB82A.5060901@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-bfd-05.txt
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:14:03 -0000
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 <nordmark@acm.org> To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> CC: Trill Chairs <trill-chairs@tools.ietf.org> 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. ---
- [trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-tr… Erik Nordmark