EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM) Forwarding
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

One minor comment to check:

(1) p 10, sec 1.3.  Need for EVPN-aware Multicast Procedures

  However, that technique does not provide optimal routing for
  multicast.  In conventional multicast routing, for a given multicast
  flow, there is only one multicast router on each BD that is permitted
  to send traffic of that flow to the BD.  If that BD has receivers for
  a given flow, but the source of the flow is not on that BD, then the
  flow must pass through that multicast router.  This leads to the
  "hair-pinning" problem described (for unicast) in Appendix A.
  For example, consider an (S,G) flow that is sourced by a TS S and
  needs to be received by TSes R1 and R2.  Suppose S is on a segment of
  BD1, R1 is on a segment of BD2, but both are attached to PE1.
  Suppose also that the tenant has a multicast router, attached to a
  segment of BD1 and to a segment of BD2.  However, the segments to
  which that router is attached are both attached to PE2.  Then the
  flow from S to R would have to follow the path:
  S-->PE1-->PE2-->Tenant Multicast Router-->PE2-->PE1-->R1.  Obviously,
  the path S-->PE1-->R would be preferred.

S to R => S to R1, and PE1-->R to PE1-->R1?

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. Although dense and slow going, I appreciated the thoroughness and precision and have confidence that the dedicated reader who makes it all the way through will be able to implement this specification. I have some minor comments below that I hope might be of use.

- I continue to find the profligate use of acronyms and initialisms that characterizes so many bess documents to be an unnecessary, not to say gratuitous, impediment to readability, but so it goes. (If the authors are open to what might be an extensive revision to address this, I'm willing to dig in and provide more detailed feedback. But I don't expect it, at this late stage, especially since as noted above, I do think the document is usable, my complaint notwithstanding. If I'm mistaken, let me know and we can work on it.)

- I agree with Éric Vyncke that there are several places where the text could easily be elucidated with the use of a diagram. Essentially, any of the many (very welcome!) examples seems like an easy candidate, one instance being “Suppose a given Tenant Domain contains three BDs (BD1, BD2, BD3) and two PEs (PE1, PE2). PE1 attaches to BD1 and BD2, while PE2 attaches to BD2 and BD3.”

- I'm sure the RFCEd will flag this, but consider replacing the pronoun "he" in Section 1.3 with something not gender-specific.

- In Section 1.5.2 you mention an “attachment AC”, which expands as "attachment attachment circuit". Probably drop "attachment" or (better still in my view, see my first bullet) spell out "attachment circuit".

- In Section 2.5 you have “This does assume that source S does not send the same (S,G) datagram on two different BDs, and that the Tenant Domain does not contain two or more sources with the same IP address S. The use of multicast sources that have IP "anycast" addresses is outside the scope of this document?” I tried to puzzle out what the consequence would be if that situation arose, but failed. Can you comment?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. Although dense and slow going, I appreciated the thoroughness and precision and have confidence that the dedicated reader who makes it all the way through will be able to implement this specification. I have some minor comments below that I hope might be of use.

- I continue to find the profligate use of acronyms and initialisms that characterizes so many bess documents to be an unnecessary, not to say gratuitous, impediment to readability, but so it goes. (If the authors are open to what might be an extensive revision to address this, I'm willing to dig in and provide more detailed feedback. But I don't expect it, at this late stage, especially since as noted above, I do think the document is usable, my complaint notwithstanding. If I'm mistaken, let me know and we can work on it.)

- I agree with Éric Vyncke that there are several places where the text could easily be elucidated with the use of a diagram. Essentially, any of the many (very welcome!) examples seems like an easy candidate, one instance being “Suppose a given Tenant Domain contains three BDs (BD1, BD2, BD3) and two PEs (PE1, PE2). PE1 attaches to BD1 and BD2, while PE2 attaches to BD2 and BD3.”

- I'm sure the RFCEd will flag this, but consider replacing the pronoun "he" in Section 1.3 with something not gender-specific.

- In Section 1.5.2 you mention an “attachment AC”, which expands as "attachment attachment circuit". Probably drop "attachment" or (better still in my view, see my first bullet) spell out "attachment circuit".

- In Section 2.5 you have “This does assume that source S does not send the same (S,G) datagram on two different BDs, and that the Tenant Domain does not contain two or more sources with the same IP address S. The use of multicast sources that have IP "anycast" addresses is outside the scope of this document?”

  I tried to puzzle out what the consequence would be if that situation arose, but failed. Can you comment?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

I only scanned for ART issues, did not find any.

The following ID-nit popped up:

> When the route is originated, the AC‑DF bit in the DF Election EC SHOULD not be set.

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
    or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
    use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
    mean).

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

* Very clearly written, I thought, thank you.

## Nits

### S1.1

* "address of addresses"
  "address or addresses", I suspect

### S1.3

* Consider "he" -> "they"

### Appendix A.

* "intreface" -> "interface"

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Tiru Reddy for his SECDIR review.  I saw not response to his feedback.  I have similar feedback.

** Section 9
  This document uses protocols and procedures defined in the normative
  references, and inherits the security considerations of those
  references.

-- Please explicitly name the relevant references.

-- Do the Security Considerations of [I-D.ietf-bier-evpn] apply?

** Section 9
  Incorrect addition, removal, or modification of those
  flags and/or ECs will cause the procedures defined herein to
  malfunction, in which case loss or diversion of data traffic is
  possible.  Implementations should provide tools to easily debug
  configuration mistakes that cause the signaling of incorrect
  information.

Is this manipulation of flags something done as by an attacker or an unintentional insider misconfiguring a system?  Are there any mitigations for this manipulation of flags?

** Section 8.  Typo.  Wrong registry name.

  IANA is requested to assign new flags in the "Multicast Flags
  Extended Community Flags" registry.

The formal name of the registry is “Multicast Flags Extended Community” (no “Flags”) per https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml#multicast-flags

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-10

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Mankamana Mishra for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. The use of the old template was a trip to the past ;-) (but this is OK).

Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-09-intdir-telechat-haberman-2024-02-22/ (and I have read Jeffrey's replies, thanks)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Author count

Just a minor comment, there are 6 authors while the limit is usually 5. Not a big deal at all for me, and it is justified in the shepherd's write-up.

## Readability

In several sections, a network diagram would help the reader.

This I-D solves a hard-problem, and it is not an easy read. I sincerely hope that the existing implementations (per shepherd's write-up) are interoperable and follow this specification.

## Section 1.1

The abstract mentions MPLS and IP as backbone while this section is only about IP. Which one is correct ?

Please move the BCP 14 template outside of `background`

## Section 1.1.1

Is having TS1 and TS2 on the same BD enough to ensure that mcast traffic is received ? Should the layer-2 infrastructure also be aware of the mcast traffic (i.e., MLD snooping)? After all, the "B" in "BD" is only for broadcast.

Would the infinite loop also happen with plain broadcast frames ?

## Section 1.1.2

`The TTL field of the IP datagram` let's rather use "hop limit" in 2024.

## Section 1.1.3

The readers would probably welcome some explanations of why PIM/MLD is not enough in the case of inter-subnet mcast traffic. Or a promise that the explanations are deferred to section 1.2. Or the leading text moved to section 1.2.

## Section 1.3

Which header is it in `header checksum is not changed` ? (IPv6 header has not checksum or is it the L4 checksum ?)

The whole section appears like WG requirements for a solution, unsure whether this text belongs to the solution document as these points are no more requirements, but properties of the solution described in this I-D.

## Section 1.4

Any reason why deviate from RFC 5952 in `FF02/16` ? (applies in other places as well)

Unsure how to change the document but isn't it a little weird to have terminology so late in the document after so many acronyms have been defined? Probably a matter of taste.

Suggest to also define "EVI" on its own rather than being hidden in the definition of another term.

## Section 1.5.1

Where is IMET specified ? The text would benefit of indicated what it is (and adding a clear source of definition == RFC 7432).

Is `Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag` specified by this document. It is unclear from the text.

## Section 3.2.3

Should the "AR" acronym be expanded first (even if guessable).

## Section 3.3

Only IGMP is used in this section, should it be stated in the intro that "MLD" is used everywhere as a shorthand of "MLD or IGMP" ?

## Section 4.1

Should there be an expansion for RPF ?


# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## ethernet vs. Ethernet

Usually Ethernet is capitalised.

## Link-local

Usually, when used as an adjective, "link-local" is written with an hyphen.

  As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

The document is standard track and it is the appropriate type as the document defines protocol extensions. It is a proper type of document since its been well understood and implementation exists.


(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 draft specifies new procedures that allow inter-subnet IP
  multicast traffic to be routed among the LANs of a given tenant,
  while still making intra-subnet IP multicast traffic appear to be
  bridged.


Working Group Summary:
Draft have been discussed in different IETF meetings and a good amount of discussion in the working group mailing list as well. It has consensus in the WG. There are more than 5 authors for this document and because of the complexity of different use cases it does cover and went through a good amount of contribution from different authors. 

Document Quality:
The document has been written very well and clearly mentions each of the procedures.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Mankamana Mishra is Document Shepherd
Andrew Alston is the responsible AD


(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.
Shephered provided comments to author and it has been addressed. 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?
No

(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 concern

(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.
There is one IPR disclosed

(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 a solid consensus and it s involving multiple vendors and operators.


(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.

Done

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable

(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?
Yes

(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

(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 8126).

IANA section comment provided


(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.
Not applicable


(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, YANG modules, etc.

Not applicable

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Multicast Flags Extended Community registry in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

four early registrations are to have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

IPMG
MEG
PEG
OISM-supported

and one new registration is to be made as follows:

Name: OISM SBD
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Change Controller: IETF

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast@ietf.org, mankamis@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM) Forwarding) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - 'EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast
(OISM) Forwarding'
  as Proposed Standard

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-10-05. 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


  Ethernet VPN (EVPN) provides a service that allows a single Local
  Area Network (LAN), comprising a single IP subnet, to be divided into
  multiple "segments".  Each segment may be located at a different
  site, and the segments are interconnected by an IP or MPLS backbone.
  Intra-subnet traffic (either unicast or multicast) always appears to
  the end users to be bridged, even when it is actually carried over
  the IP or MPLS backbone.  When a single "tenant" owns multiple such
  LANs, EVPN also allows IP unicast traffic to be routed between those
  LANs.  This document specifies new procedures that allow inter-subnet
  IP multicast traffic to be routed among the LANs of a given tenant,
  while still making intra-subnet IP multicast traffic appear to be
  bridged.  These procedures can provide optimal routing of the inter-
  subnet multicast traffic, and do not require any such traffic to
  egress a given router and then ingress that same router.  These
  procedures also accommodate IP multicast traffic that originates or
  is destined external to the EVPN domain.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3245/

  As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

The document is standard track and it is the appropriate type as the document defines protocol extensions.


(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 draft specifies new procedures that allow inter-subnet IP
  multicast traffic to be routed among the LANs of a given tenant,
  while still making intra-subnet IP multicast traffic appear to be
  bridged.


Working Group Summary:
Draft have been discussed in different IETF meetings and good amount of discussion in working group mailing list as well. It has consensus in he WG.

Document Quality:
Document has been written very well and clearly mentions each of the procedure.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Mankamana Mishra is Document Shepherd
Martin Vigoureux is the responsible AD


(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.
Shephered provided comments to author and it has been addressed. 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?
No

(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 concern

(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.
There is one IPR disclosed

(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 a solid consensus and it s involving multiple vendors and operators.


(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.

Done

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable

(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?
Yes

(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

(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 8126).

IANA section comment provided


(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.
Not applicable


(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, YANG modules, etc.

Not applicable

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable

  As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?

The document is standard track and it is the appropriate type as the document defines protocol extensions.


(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 draft specifies new procedures that allow inter-subnet IP
  multicast traffic to be routed among the LANs of a given tenant,
  while still making intra-subnet IP multicast traffic appear to be
  bridged.


Working Group Summary:
Draft have been discussed in different IETF meetings and good amount of discussion in working group mailing list as well. It has consensus in he WG.

Document Quality:
Document has been written very well and clearly mentions each of the procedure.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Mankamana Mishra is Document Shepherd
Martin Vigoureux is the responsible AD


(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.
Shephered provided comments to author and it has been addressed. 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?
No

(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 concern

(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.
There is one IPR disclosed

(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 a solid consensus and it s involving multiple vendors and operators.


(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.

Done

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable

(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?
Yes

(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

(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 8126).

IANA section comment provided


(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.
Not applicable


(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, YANG modules, etc.

Not applicable

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Eric Rosen , bess-chairs@ietf.org, Ali Sajassi , Wen Lin