Draft Title: Multicast in VPLS
Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-13.txt

(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?

Standards.

This is the proper type of RFC as this is an enhancement to a core L2VPN protocol rather than a core protocol in itself.

(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:

The draft describes a solution for overcoming a subset of the limitations of existing VPLS multicast solutions. It describes procedures for VPLS multicast that utilize multicast trees in the service provider (SP) network.

Working Group Summary:

This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been well reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft and WG last calls. The authors have addressed the comments received on the mailing list and the WG chairs. The draft
was last-called after those comments were addressed and passed the WG last call.

Document Quality:

The document has good quality. It is clear on the technical content and written with good English and layout.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com)
Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)

(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.

The Document Shepherd did a full review of version 11 of the draft that addressed the earlier comments. There were some idnits errors that led to issuing draft version 12. Version 12 addressed most of the idnits errors except for the line lengths of some entries in the table of content.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. This document had been well reviewed.

(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 specific 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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Juniper networks made a statement about IPR claimed in the draft on March 17, 2009 related to version 04 of the draft. This disclosure was made much earlier than my tenure as a WG chair and I am not aware of any discussion of that IPR disclosure. In addition, Juniper networks filed another disclosure on December 12, 2012 after the IPR call directed to the authors was issued. As a result, a WG last call was issued again related to that IPR. A A 2-week period was given for that call. The call closed on 1/29/2013. There was no concern or objection to proceeding with the draft received on the mailing list.

(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?

This draft had been work in progress for a while. It was expert reviewed by Wim Hendrix following a previous WG last call that resulted in the 08 draft. Version 09 addressed further comments received from Eric Rosen and the chairs. It further addressed comments from the WG chairs and Eric in version 11. In the WG calls to version 08 and version 11, there was no other feedback received.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.

Upon running the idnits tool, there was one error found "** The document seems to lack an Introduction section.". However, the document does have an introduction section. The idnits check passed otherwise. earlier nits that were in version 12 have been fixed in this version, version 13.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.

(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?

No - all normative references are to RFCs.

(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 - all normative references are upward.

(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 - no impact on status of 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).

The IANA considerations section calls out the need for allocating a SAFI value for the MCAST-VPLS NLRI

(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.

None.

(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.

No sections written in a formal language.