[trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension-04
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Fri, 11 May 2012 17:27 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 47B8E21F86C1 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 10:27:12 -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 R53Spg+q-mnr for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (a.mail.sonic.net [64.142.16.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8D721F86BD for <trill@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 May 2012 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.22.63] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id q4BHR8kt002947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 May 2012 10:27:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4FAD4BEC.6080707@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:27:08 -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: <4FAD4BCC.4090709@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FAD4BCC.4090709@acm.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4FAD4BCC.4090709@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-extension-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: Fri, 11 May 2012 17:27:12 -0000
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Publication requested: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension-04 Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:26:36 -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: 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.
- [trill] Fwd: Publication requested: draft-ietf-tr… Erik Nordmark