https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz/shepherdwriteup/
In November 2025, the IDR chairs corresponded with the BESS chairs about
the disposition of the DMZ draft. As you know from the long history of
this draft, the link-bandwidth one, and the work that came to be part of
RFC 4360-bis, we've discussed leaving the DMZ draft in BESS and running
concurrent WGLC's on this draft along with RFC 4360-bis.
As part of this concurrent WGLC, I've completed an initial shepherd
report for the DMZ draft. Please review its contents for correctness.
A few items have been identified that will be needing to be addressed
prior to starting the last call. They are:
- Author count > 5. I've not recommended changes since I've not been a
participant in those discussions. The chairs have been urged to discuss
what to do about it.
- Proposed status. Ketan, as part of the link-bandwidth draft AD
review, suggested that the DMZ draft should likely be informational.
- IPR declarations were partially gathered during document adoption.
While I have not been deeply thorough in my review of the IETF
mailarchive for search terms covering this draft, my cursory review
suggests we're missing IPR declarations for some of the authors. If
you're one of the authors identified in the shepherd writeup, please
either make an appropriate declaration or perhaps provide a pointer in
the archive for a prior one.
- The authors have left a NOTE in the draft suggesting a bit of doubt
about the disposition of one of the points regarding zero
link-bandwidth. Discussion about this was part of our last minute
link-bandwidth document changes in IDR - so this isn't surprising. The
authors are requested to please address this lingering point in the draft.
- While there are no normative procedures specified in the draft, the
procedures do raise questions about supporting implementations. I won't
speak for the chairs in terms of expectations of formal implementation
reports for their working group. If such an implementation report
exists for one of your implementations, please disclose it so it can be
added to the report.
- The document may benefit from a routing-directorate review. I was
unable to identify a prior review for this document from the mail archives.
In general, the document is in good shape.
I'll be working on a similar shepherd report for RFC 4360-bis in IDR.
IDR does have a requirement for at least two implementations in order to
progress the document. Since part of the motivation for RFC 4360-bis
was addressing the transitivity considerations needed for this document,
I find it highly likely that there are implementations from authors
participating in the DMZ draft for the RFC 4360-bis work. Please
contribute to IDR's implementation report so that we can send both
documents to the IESG at the same time when they've completed their reviews.
-- Jeff (as document shepherd)
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
