Skip to main content

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