Population Count Extensions to Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-10-09
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-10-09
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2012-10-09
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-10-08
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-10-08
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-10-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2012-10-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-10-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-10-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-10-05
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-10-05
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-10-05
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-10-04
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-10-04
|
07 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt |
2012-07-14
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised ID Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-06-21
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-06-21
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-06-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-06-21
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-06-20
|
06 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] - Same question as Stephen on my side. As an OPS A.D., I have to ask: Any connection with the PIM MIB, RFC5060 … [Ballot comment] - Same question as Stephen on my side. As an OPS A.D., I have to ask: Any connection with the PIM MIB, RFC5060? Or any other MIB module? Or is the new information only available via a show command in the routers (as a starting point because it's experimental)? - I found that many acronyms are not expanded (IGMP, MLD, SSM, ASM, etc..), and are missing references. Sure they're known if you know multicast. However, the RFC-editor will flag those, so you might consider easing the RFC-editor lives and at the end the reader not that familiar with multicast |
2012-06-20
|
06 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-06-20
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 19-Jun-2012 raised two questions that deserve a response. (1) The Transit and Stub … [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 19-Jun-2012 raised two questions that deserve a response. (1) The Transit and Stub oif-List counts are only 2 octets. Will these fields be large enough to contain the totals for a large multicast distribution tree? (2) Are there any alignment constraints on the options? It looks like all the two-octet options come first and the single-octet options come last. However, is this a requirement for any future options that may be defined? |
2012-06-20
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-06-19
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] s3: Any reason you decided to list the Flags in reverse order from the figure? |
2012-06-19
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-06-19
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Seems like a good experiment. I wondered if there are any MIB modules for PIM and, if so, if the stats here are … [Ballot comment] Seems like a good experiment. I wondered if there are any MIB modules for PIM and, if so, if the stats here are commensurate with what the MIB calls for measuring. |
2012-06-19
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-06-19
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-06-19
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-06-19
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-06-14
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I had been wondering, at the start of reading this, why it was going to turn out as Experimental, and thank you for … [Ballot comment] I had been wondering, at the start of reading this, why it was going to turn out as Experimental, and thank you for explaining that. I wish such explanations were always there, and I think it helps a lot. |
2012-06-14
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-06-12
|
06 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this experimental document and only have a few non-blocking comments. Take them or leave them … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this experimental document and only have a few non-blocking comments. Take them or leave them as you see fit. 1. The definition of the A/S flag pair seems incorrect. If A=0 and S=1, that does not mean that all receivers are "only SSM" receivers. It means that all receivers are SSM-capable. The group joined will have an influence on whether all receivers are operating in SSM mode. 2. The idea of tracking if an OIF list crosses a domain boundary is interesting. How would a router know that a particular OIF links to another domain? Is it driven by what protocol caused the OIF to be added (e.g., MSDP in IPv4)? It would be good to expand on how that is determined, if there is a standard way to detect it. 3. Given the use of a PIM Join attribute, these statistics can aggregate up a multicast distribution tree. What I would be interested in seeing is *how* a network operator accesses these stats. Is it envisioned that a router's CLI will be used since there is no defined way to push/pull the data out via a management interface? 4. It is unclear to me how useful the time zone information will be. As mentioned in the draft, that information could be contained as an interface attribute. However, that may not be sufficient given multi-access interfaces. Is there more context that can be added as to how these time zone "boundaries" are detected/configured/managed? |
2012-06-12
|
06 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-06-12
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-06-09
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2012-06-09
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-06-09
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-06-09
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-06-05
|
06 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-06 and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two IANA actions which need to … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-06 and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two IANA actions which need to be completed. First, in the PIM-Hello Options subregistry of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xml the pre-allocated value 298 [Pop-Count] is to be made permanent with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the entry for the length of this option is to be changed. The current, pre-allocated, entry has a length of "8'; this will be changed to "variable." Second, in the PIM Join Attribute Types subregistry of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xml a new Attribute Type will be registered as follows: Value: [ tbd ] Name: Pop-Count Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2012-06-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-06-21 |
2012-05-31
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete McCann |
2012-05-31
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete McCann |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Population Count Extensions to PIM) to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Population Count Extensions to PIM) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast WG (pim) to consider the following document: - 'Population Count Extensions to PIM' as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification defines a method for providing multicast distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable fashion. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-05-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | UPDATED DOCUMENT WRITE-UP =========================== (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … UPDATED DOCUMENT WRITE-UP =========================== (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? Experimental RFC due to wg consensus. The title page indicates Experimental. (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 This specification defines a method for providing multicast distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable fashion. Working Group Summary There is consensus within the PIM WG to publish this document. The document has been actively discussed on the wg list and in wg meetings. There was no controversy with the progression of this document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? No Implementations. Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Mike McBride is the document shepherd and Adrian Farrel is the responsible Area Director. (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. I read the document. The AD read the document. My co-chair has read the document. The WG has read the document. It has been successfully run through idnits. This version of the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I have no concerns. (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? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No 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. If not, explain why. Yes. There is no IPR. (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. (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? There is solid WG consensus behind the document. It has undergone thorough review within the multicast community. The document has been actively discussed on the WG mailing listand in WG meetings. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 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 nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No required formal review. (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? RFC4601 is on the path to becoming an Internet Standard. (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? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No, publication of this document will not 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. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). IANA considerations are clear and detailed. (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. No expert review necessary. (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. Not applicable |
2012-04-26
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Waitibg for an updated Shepherd write-up |
2012-04-26
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-04-25
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-04-10
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-04-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-06.txt |
2012-04-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Hi, Sorry I sat on this I-D a while doing my review. The review is my usual pass over the document to iron out nits … Hi, Sorry I sat on this I-D a while doing my review. The review is my usual pass over the document to iron out nits that I think might show up in IETF last call, Directorate reviews, or during IESG evaluation. By catching the issues at this stage we can save the effort of multiple reviewers, and achieve a smoother passage through the publication process. All of my comments can be discussed. As it stands, I think a new revision would help address these point so I will move the I-D into "New Revision Required" state, and when I see an update I will advance the document to IETF last call. Please be sure that the new revision passes idnits. Thanks, Adrian --- Please update Yiqun's email address to yiqunc@microsoft.com and his coordinates to Microsoft. --- The RFC Editor likes the document to begin with an Introduction, so you could move Section 1 into 2.1 and renumber. --- I think that the RFC Editor likes all figures to be captioned and given a number (e.g. Figure 1 : A Sample Foobar). Further, they like all figures to be explicitly referenced form the text. That sounds a bore to do, but if you have the energy it might be worth it. --- Can you s/this draft/this document/ throughout since, on publication, this will not be a draft any more. --- We will get push-back from the IESG to "describe the experiment". I think this can be handled relatively easily in the Introduction with some text such as: This is a new proposal for an extension to PIM, and it is not completely understood what impact collecting information using PIM would have on the operation of PIM. Many PIM features (including the core protocol) were first introduced as Experimental RFCs, and it seems appropriate to advance this work as Experimental. Reports of implementation and deployment across whole distribution trees or within sub-trees (see Section 7) will enable an assessment of the desirability and stability of this feature. The PIM working group will then consider whether to move this work to the Standards Track. I am only showing example text here. I am not attached to the content, but I am trying to cover the bases in a way that the IESG is likely to request. Please feel free to use other text if it works better for you. --- I think you need to expand "oif-list" on first use. --- Section 3 If a PIM router supports this draft, it must send the Pop- Count-Supported TLV. I think this might be better written as: A PIM router indicates that it supports this document by sending the Pop-Count-Supported TLV in a PIM Hello message. --- Section 3 The format of the TLV is defined to be: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OptionType | OptionLength | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OptionValue | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ OptionType = 29, OptionLength = 4, there is no OptionValue semantics defined at this time but will be included for expandability and be defined in future revisions of this draft. The format will look like: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 29 | 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unallocated Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Unallocated Flags: for now should be sent as 0 and ignored on receipt. I am ambivalent about defining the flags field. Does PIM require that an options TLV is always the same length? If so, you are doing the right thing, but if not, you could equally come back later and define that, if the length is non-zero, the first four bytes are flags. But this is Experimental, so I don't object. Mainly I am curious :-) But anyway, I don't think you need the TLV format twice, and you need to allow IANA to make the allocation (although you can suggest a value in the IANA section). So you could rewrite as: The format follows the format of all Hello Option TLVs [RFC4601]: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OptionType = TBD1 | OptionLength = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unallocated Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Unallocated Flags: Unused flags SHOULD be sent as 0 and ignored on receipt. This document defines no flags. Then, in Section 8... OLD A new PIM Hello Option type, 29, has been assigned. See [HELLO] for details. NEW IANA is requested to define a new PIM Hello Option type in the registry at [HELLO]. Pop-Count Support TBD1 A value of 29 is suggested. END --- Section 4 Suggest s/Pop-Count attribute/Pop-Count Join Attribute/ s/to process PIM Join Attribute/to process a PIM Join Attribute/ --- Section 4 Again, to leave this to IANA... OLD Attr Type: 2. NEW Attr Type: TBD2 END And then, in Section 8 OLD A new PIM Join Attribute type needs to be assigned. 2 is proposed in this draft. NEW IANA is requested to allocate a new PIM Join Attribute type. Pop-Count Join Attribute TBD2 A value of 2 is suggested. --- Section 4 Unallocated Flags: The flags which are currently not defined. If a new flag is defined and sent by a new implementation, an old implementation should preserve the bit settings. This means that if a bit was set in a PIM Join message from any of the downstream routers, then it MUST also be set in any PIM Join sent upstream. Am I being too pedantic? Presumably clear bits MUST also be kept clear. How about: This means that a router MUST preserve the settings of all Unallocated Flags in PIM Join messages received from downstream routers in any PIM Join sent upstream. --- Section 4 P flag: This flag remains set if all downstream routers support this specification. That is, they are PIM pop-count capable. This allows one to tell if the entire sub-tree is completely accounting capable. I'm not clear about this. Is the assumption that a router will clear this flag if it knows that a downstream router is not PIM pop-count capable? (I presume that the downstream router would not clear the flag because it doesn't know about this I-D.) Can you clarify by saying who has the responsibility to clear the flag? --- Section 4.2 has some ugly XML bleedthrough |
2012-04-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation |
2012-03-19
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-03-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-05 ================================================= http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-05.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-05 ================================================= http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-05.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Mike McBride is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed the document, and believe it is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has undergone thorough review within IETF's Multicast community. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have no concerns. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus within the PIM WG to publish the document. The document has been actively discussed on the wg list and in wg meetings. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. Just two changes may be made if necessary. per idnits: == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-11 -- Duplicate reference: RFC4601, mentioned in 'HELLO', was also mentioned in 'RFC4601'. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes. Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA Considerations section exists. A new PIM Hello Option type, 29, has been assigned. A new PIM Join Attribute type needs to be assigned. 2 is proposed in this draft. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. This specification defines a method for providing multicast distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable fashion. |
2012-03-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Note added 'Mike McBride (mmcbride7@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-03-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Experimental |
2012-03-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-03-19
|
05 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-farinacci-pim-pop-count |
2012-01-05
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-05.txt |
2011-07-06
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-04.txt |
2011-03-11
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-03.txt |
2010-09-05
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2010-03-04
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-02.txt |
2009-07-02
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-01.txt |
2008-07-28
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-00.txt |