[trill] Fwd: Publication Requested: draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Sun, 18 November 2012 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E5B21F8206 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:47:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7v+8i0SkSsS9 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD7E21F8200 for <trill@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so6598397iec.31 for <trill@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:47:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=mUW9dedP9SWcGCIo1KRwDAyZg3HhBZX+m8JXR2XjTKU=; b=q14WPGd8DqXc8fnfVYCNLbh+Td5RF6TpY7s+uTyKQ4m4DUB1BoX6mDpJL9IfatYlo3 cAqQgS8ZbmKDQTLi4BNDl+ud0XhF1qP+2pu61MbzCKHmaDy7/xjgL/pclZdfg4bVRfUM 6lHlKHQdzaSFrdmBTLe6dtYf4Smny3QI0PG/+viXe3erXZilH+VoCQ7KC3JWZd3/Nwi3 Ia7lmpd7zFGflWAWpqoEFXViqzoFes5kenuVankYoXuhQE4kIK0/fuwSt74E5HZiDeKW tqlN4qc1buf+W+QxqmGmtXauVhThDOsbOLGopx/+o5f4yQ2M9SLcMFRsyLxr8Z4291HB nipQ==
Received: by with SMTP id z9mr5178127igk.59.1353282425153; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:47:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:46:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFDHYFFJ60seSNBFu992y1GOLMV6KFZVogQbrEXD-nmDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEFDHYFFJ60seSNBFu992y1GOLMV6KFZVogQbrEXD-nmDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:46:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEF2jHLyXTNA-1JAoe-in3bQ+dKy3JVVP=we7zp0Z0ZHFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: trill@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [trill] Fwd: Publication Requested: draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:47:06 -0000

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:17 PM
Subject: Publication Requested: draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04
To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>rg>, Ralph Droms
Cc: trill-chairs@tools.ietf.org

   Requirements for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in
           TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

  Informational, as indicated on the title page. This is a
  requirements documents, not a technical specification, but does
  include RFC 2119 language to indicate the requirements for a
  specification or specifications satisfying the requirements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. The
approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  The TRILL protocol current supports SNMP and BFD but those provide
  only limited OAM facilities. This document is the first in a planned
  series of documents to provide more complete OAM facilities. It
  gives requirements for those OAM facilities and is expected to be
  followed by an OAM Framework document (currently a TRILL WG draft)
  which is in turn expected to be followed by two detailed
  specifications: Fault Management (current a personal draft) and
  Performance Management (no draft posted at this time). While the
  current direction of TRILL OAM is to parallel IEEE 802.1ag, this
  requirement document is general independent of OAM technology and
  does not constrain that direction.

Working Group Summary:

  This document originated in the TRILL OAM design team. It was adopted
  by a strong consensus and reviewed by the WG. Changes were made
  based on review in the working group and there was a good consensus
  to forward it for publication.

Document Quality:

  There is significant vendor interest in more complete OAM facilities
  for TRILL. This document has been thoroughly reviewed. It was
  originated in the TRILL OAM design team and has also been reviewed
  by a number of IEEE 802.1 voting members who volunteered to do so in
  their individual capacity. In addition, it was closely reviewed
  several times by Thomas Narten, a former Internet Area Director.


 The Document Shepherd is Donald Eastlake.
 The Responsible Area Director is Ralph Droms.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.

  I read through the draft carefully right after reading the
  "Checklist for Internet-Drafts (IDs) submitted for RFC publication".
  I have found only few editorial glitches that have now been fixed
  and the nits listed in item 11 below.

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


(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?

  Operations Directorate review will be helpful and has been
  explicitly requested, as this is an OAM requirements document.

(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?

  No special concerns.

(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.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references 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?

  Not every TRILL WG participant is interested in or knowledgeable
  about OAM but there was wide support for the document. There has
  been explicit support by over a dozen WG participants and no one has
  posted either opposing the document as a whole or opposing
  advancement of the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme


(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 are three minor nits: [RFC4377] in not referenced in the body
  and should be removed from the references section.
  "draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06" in the references section is an
  old version -- probably the version number should just be removed
  from the partial file name.  Lastly, the nits checker doesn't like
  it that the Authors' Addresses section is called "Contributing
  Authors". Also some of the entries in the Contributing Authors
  section are not separated by blank lines.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such formal reviews required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?


(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)?

  No. This is an informational document.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document.

  This is a requirements document and requires no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations.


(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 required.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA