At 06:21 AM 12/07/2006, Geoff Huston wrote:
This note starts the WG Last Call for comments
on draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt, "Operation of Anycast Services".
It can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt
Please review the document carefully, and send
your feedback to the GROW list. Please also
indicate whether or not you believe that this
document is ready to go to the IESG for publication as a BCP.
This Working Group Last Call will end on 26 July 2006 at 0800, UTC+10
The Working Group Last Call period for this document has concluded.
I observe consensus within the Working Group to
request publication of this document as a BCP.
thanks to all those who responded
regards,
Geoff Huston
GROW WG Chair
=========================================
26 July 2006
Document: draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt
Proposed Publication track: BCP
While the working group has not been unanimous in its support of proceeding
to a recommendation to publish this document, I am comfortable in making a
call that the Working Group has shown a rough consensus to indicate that it
has completed its work on this document and is ready to proceed with
publication as a BCP.
The following advice is being passed to the ADs as the Protocol Note
associated with this request for publication.
1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
to forward to the IESG for publication? Which chair is the WG
Chair Shepherd for this document?
Yes, the document has been reviewed by the GROW WG Chair.
The document is, I believe, ready to forward to the IESG for
publication.
Geoff Huston is the WG Chair Shepherd for this document
1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key
non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has had extensive review by the GROW WG across 2005
and 2006, and has generated a considerable volume of discussion. I
have no residual concerns about the depth or breadth of the Working
Group's review process for this document.
The document has been further reviewed in July 2006 in the context
of a Working Group Last Call, and I received positive responses
from the following Working Group members to proceed with
publication in response to a Working Group Last Call on this
version of the document:
Pekka Savola, Joao Damas, William Maton, Vince Fuller, Matt
Pounsett, McTim (Tim McGinnis), Bill Woodcock, MÃ¥ns Nilsson,
Anton Ivanov and Stephane Bortzmeyer.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00556.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00557.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00561.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00568.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00569.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00570.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00573.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00575.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00577.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00579.html
A number of WG members submitted review comments to the Grow WG
mail list during the WG Last Call. These comments are archived at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00571.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00577.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00578.html
In this WG Last Call period Dean Anderson has indicated his
opposition to publication of this document "since it is not a
workable technology for stateful anycast", citing "technical
analysis and reasons previously given" as the basis for his
position:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00576.html
This has been the only WG contribution
to the Last Call against proceeding with publication of this document.
1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, XML,
etc.)?
The document has been reviewed from an applications design
perspective, and, in particular, from the perspective of deployment
of DNS services. I have no concerns that that additional review of
the document from an applications perspective is necessary.
1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you
believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps
you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your
issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that
it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the
write-up.
In an earlier WG Last Call there was a single dissenting view from
Dean Anderson noting a difference in semantic interpretation of
'node selection', differences in capabilities of 'Per-Packet Load
Balancing', and differences of view in the potential for TCP
failure over parallel diverse paths with Per-Packet Load Balancing.
Dean Anderson noted that the chairs had judged WG consensus for
publication of this document and that he did not dispute that
judgment.
This initial consensus call in November 2005 has been the subject
of an appeal by Dean Anderson. The Working Group chair rejected
this appeal on the 6th June 2006.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00540.html
The document has been revised since, and a revision (-04) was
published in July 2006. A 2 week Working Group Last Call on this
revised version (-04) of the document was issued on the 12th July,
and has been completed on the 26th July 2006. The WG response to
this Last Call is summarized in the response to question 1.b).
1.e) 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 document has been reviewed by a number of WG members and there
appears to be a very considerable level of support for this
document to proceed with publication as a BCP. I am confident in
making the judgement of a rough consensus within the Working Group
to proceed with publication of this document.
1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email to the Responsible Area Director.
1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against
all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Yes - the only nit in the document is that it was published as a
draft on the 10th July 2006, yet the data header on the draft
indicates January 2006 with an expiration of 5 July 2006.
No other nits have been found and the document checks against the
online nits checked.
1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are
not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to
IDs (will delay the publication until all such IDs are also ready for
RFC publication). If the normative references are behind, what is the
strategy for their completion? On a related matter, are there
normative references that are downward references, as described in BCP
97, RFC 3967 RFC 3967 [RFC3967]? Listing these supports the Area
Director in the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967.
References are split into normative and informative references.
Normative references reference published RFCs. Informative
references include a reference to a current internet draft.
As this is a proposed BCP there is no downward normative
references.
1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a write-up section with the following
sections:
* Technical Summary
This document describes the use of anycast for both local
scope distribution of services using an Interior Gateway
Protocol and global distribution using BGP. Many of the
issues for monitoring and data synchronization are common to
both, but deployment issues differ substantially.
The document considers the design of anycast services,
including considerations of protocol suitability, routing
considerations, addressing considerations and multi-service
configurations, as well as service management issues.
* Working Group Summary
The document was adopted as a GROW WG document in February
2005, and further revised in accordance with WG comments. The
Working Group Last Call was conducted in November 2005, and a
further revision of the document was published in January
2006. The revision that has been last-called in July 2006 is
the -04 version of the internet draft.
The WG position was a general consensus, with some further
review comments that do not appear to alter the overall WG
consensus that the document is ready for publication as a BCP.
* Protocol Quality
The document describes the advantages and limitations of a
commonly used service deployment technique.
Anycast has been widely deployed in a number of scenarios,
particularly relating to the deployment of DNS servers.
Anycast does not require specific support from equipment
vendors.
_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
