Hi Jeff, Thanks for your review. IPR - I’m not aware after any IPR that applies to the draft. Implementation report: I can confirm implementations in FRR (SONiC) and Nvidia Cumulus. While at MSFT i have also tested and achieved interoperability with Arista EOS, but would let Arista co-authors to confirm.
Wrt number of co-authors: All original co-authors contributed to different parts of the document, where Arie and I contributed use cases/deployment strategy at our hyperscale employers at the time and vendors details, ensuring interoperability. All of original co-authors should be there. Cheers, Jeff > On Feb 13, 2026, at 15:38, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
