Skip to main content

EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM) Forwarding
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-02-27
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-02-27
10 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-10.txt
2024-02-27
10 Zhaohui Zhang New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Zhaohui Zhang)
2024-02-27
10 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2024-02-22
09 Brian Haberman Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Haberman. Sent review to list.
2024-02-19
09 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman
2024-02-18
09 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2024-02-15
09 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-03-07
2024-02-15
09 Andrew Alston Ballot has been issued
2024-02-15
09 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2024-02-15
09 Andrew Alston Created "Approve" ballot
2024-02-15
09 Andrew Alston IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-02-15
09 Andrew Alston Ballot writeup was changed
2024-01-26
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Nagendra Nainar Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
09 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2023-11-29
09 Mankamana Mishra
  As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is …
  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
2023-11-03
09 Andrew Alston Have requested minor updates to the shepherd write up - will be moving this to telechat once these are completed.
2023-10-05
09 Stewart Bryant Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list.
2023-10-05
09 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-10-03
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-10-03
09 David Dong
(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 …
(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
2023-09-29
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2023-09-28
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
2023-09-21
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar
2023-09-21
09 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-09-21
09 Cindy Morgan
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 …
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/





2023-09-21
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-09-21
09 Andrew Alston Last call was requested
2023-09-21
09 Andrew Alston Last call announcement was generated
2023-09-21
09 Andrew Alston Ballot approval text was generated
2023-09-21
09 Andrew Alston Ballot writeup was generated
2023-09-21
09 Andrew Alston IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2023-02-21
09 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-09.txt
2023-02-21
09 Zhaohui Zhang New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Zhaohui Zhang)
2023-02-21
09 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2022-12-24
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tirumaleswar Reddy.K. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2022-12-20
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tirumaleswar Reddy.K.
2022-11-28
08 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-08.txt
2022-11-28
08 Zhaohui Zhang New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Zhaohui Zhang)
2022-11-28
08 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2022-11-17
07 Acee Lindem Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Acee Lindem.
2022-11-02
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem
2022-11-02
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem
2022-11-02
07 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to He Jia was rejected
2022-11-01
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia
2022-11-01
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia
2022-11-01
07 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Adrian Farrel was marked no-response
2022-07-11
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel
2022-07-11
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel
2022-07-10
07 Dhruv Dhody Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Dhruv Dhody was rejected
2022-07-10
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2022-07-10
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2022-07-10
07 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Mach Chen was rejected
2022-07-05
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mach Chen
2022-07-05
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mach Chen
2022-06-24
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
2022-06-24
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
2022-06-24
07 Andrew Alston Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-06-24
07 Andrew Alston Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2022-06-23
07 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-07.txt
2022-06-23
07 Zhaohui Zhang New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Zhaohui Zhang)
2022-06-23
07 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2022-06-22
06 (System) Changed action holders to Andrew Alston (IESG state changed)
2022-06-22
06 Andrew Alston IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-03-23
06 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Andrew Alston
2021-10-26
06 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-10-26
06 Cindy Morgan Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-10-19
06 Mankamana Mishra
  As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is …
  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
2021-10-19
06 Mankamana Mishra Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux
2021-10-19
06 Mankamana Mishra IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-10-19
06 Mankamana Mishra IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-10-19
06 Mankamana Mishra IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-09-01
06 Mankamana Mishra
  As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is …
  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
2021-05-24
06 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-06.txt
2021-05-24
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Zhaohui Zhang)
2021-05-24
06 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2021-04-29
05 Mankamana Mishra Notification list changed to mankamis@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-04-29
05 Mankamana Mishra Document shepherd changed to Mankamana Prasad Mishra
2021-04-16
05 (System) Document has expired
2020-10-13
05 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-05.txt
2020-10-13
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Zhaohui Zhang)
2020-10-13
05 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2020-04-30
04 (System) Document has expired
2020-03-24
04 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2019-10-28
04 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-04.txt
2019-10-28
04 (System) New version approved
2019-10-28
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Eric Rosen , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Ali Sajassi , Wen Lin
2019-10-28
04 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2019-08-16
03 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-03.txt
2019-08-16
03 (System) New version approved
2019-08-16
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Eric Rosen , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Ali Sajassi , Wen Lin
2019-08-16
03 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2019-07-27
02 (System) Document has expired
2019-01-23
02 Zhaohui Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-02.txt
2019-01-23
02 (System) New version approved
2019-01-23
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Eric Rosen , bess-chairs@ietf.org, Ali Sajassi , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Eric Rosen , bess-chairs@ietf.org, Ali Sajassi , Wen Lin
2019-01-23
02 Zhaohui Zhang Uploaded new revision
2019-01-17
01 (System) Document has expired
2018-08-06
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure: Juniper's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast
2018-07-16
01 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-01.txt
2018-07-16
01 (System) New version approved
2018-07-16
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Eric Rosen , Ali Sajassi , Wen Lin
2018-07-16
01 Eric Rosen Uploaded new revision
2018-04-27
00 Stephane Litkowski This document now replaces draft-lin-bess-evpn-irb-mcast instead of None
2018-02-13
00 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-00.txt
2018-02-13
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-02-13
00 Eric Rosen Set submitter to ""Eric C. Rosen" ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: bess-chairs@ietf.org
2018-02-13
00 Eric Rosen Uploaded new revision