Skip to main content

Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN Networks
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-15

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-02-18
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2025-02-18
15 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2025-02-18
15 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2025-02-18
15 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2025-02-18
15 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2025-02-18
15 Jenny Bui IESG has approved the document
2025-02-18
15 Jenny Bui Closed "Approve" ballot
2025-02-18
15 Jenny Bui Ballot approval text was generated
2025-02-16
15 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2025-02-16
15 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot writeup was changed
2025-02-14
15 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-15.txt
2025-02-14
15 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2025-02-14
15 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2025-02-06
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2025-02-05
14 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2025-02-05
14 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
(Correcting ballot type)

- Thanks for the invaluable worked examples.

- It appears [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd] needs to be a normative reference, since …
[Ballot comment]
(Correcting ballot type)

- Thanks for the invaluable worked examples.

- It appears [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd] needs to be a normative reference, since it’s not just exemplary.
2025-02-05
14 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2025-02-05
14 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
- Thanks for the invaluable worked examples.

- It appears [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd] needs to be a normative reference, since it’s not just …
[Ballot comment]
- Thanks for the invaluable worked examples.

- It appears [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd] needs to be a normative reference, since it’s not just exemplary.
2025-02-05
14 John Scudder Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder
2025-02-05
14 Mankamana Mishra
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  This draft had good amount of support across multiple vendors. There were good discussion in room and over mail as well. It is fair to say that it has broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Nokia and Juniper are vendors who have shown commitment to implement this spec. It had been notified that draft is part of roadmap for implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  It has intersection with multicast. but all the procedure are limited to scope of BESS working group. Most example in the documents have picked IPv4 IP as example but this solution is Agnostic to Address family.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document is extension of base EVPN related draft. there is No new MIB or YANG extension defined.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No, there is no YANG model defined in this draft.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  Did run IETF tool.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, document has been written well and clear. It is ready to move to next step.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    NA

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, and it has been shown in document properly.This draft defines procedures and encodings, hence its suitability for the standards track is justified and accepted by working group.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, IPR call was made and IPR were decleared.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    No, there are only 5 authors .

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    idnits were run

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    NA

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No, one of the reference draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11 is already in RFC editor queue.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    IANA section is consistent with body of the development .

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



NA

2025-02-05
14 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2025-02-05
14 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As usual with BESS …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As usual with BESS document, the text is not easy to understand by non-BESS readers, but I guess this is the nature of this WG.

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 Prasad Mishra for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Dirk Von Hugo, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-13-intdir-telechat-von-hugo-2025-01-15/ (and I have read Jorge's reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### No IETF Last Call RTG-dir review ?

Is there a reason why there were no request for an IETF Last Call review by RTG directorate (only an early review) ?

In the same vein, any reason why the mcast WGs (at least PIM) were not copied explicitly during the WG Last Call ? After all, this is mcast related.

### Section 1

Suggest adding a reference to the EVPN RFC.

s/Each receiver should receive only one of the multiple flows/Each receiver should receive only from one source/ ?

### Section 1.1

Should references be added for IGMP, MLD, BIER, ...

### Section 1.3 and other places

The figure and text only use IGMP even if MLD is also supported (I hope). Please use MLD only and indicate in the introduction that MLD stands for IGMP/MLD.

### Section 4.1

As indicated by id-nits, the examples are IPv4-only. There should be some examples (perhaps in other sections) with IPv6 as well.

### Section 5.3

Should a reference to BFD be added ?

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

Is there a reason why `Broadcast Domain` is capitalized ?

s/ethernet/Ethernet/

### Abstract

s/Layer 2 and Layer 3 services/layer-2 and layer-3 services/

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)
2025-02-05
14 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2025-02-05
14 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2025-02-04
14 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2025-02-04
14 Mahesh Jethanandani
[Ballot comment]
Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", …
[Ballot comment]
Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common",
  "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic",
  "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted",
  "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread"

A run of idnits revealed probably one warning (for an IPv6 example) that might warrant attention.

draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-14.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to
  https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the
    document.

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was
    1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 1660 lines


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses
    according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation
    addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (30 January 2025) is 4 days in the past.  Is
    this intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
    references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments
    (--).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 5, paragraph 1
> when forwarding G-traffic received on a S-ES. This label is allocated from a
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

Section 5.1, paragraph 4
> ets from the redundant G-sources with a S-ESI label, regardless of the PMSI t
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".
2025-02-04
14 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2025-02-04
14 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Meral Shirazipour for the GENART review.
2025-02-04
14 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2025-02-03
14 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2025-02-03
14 Deb Cooley [Ballot comment]
one very simple comment: 

Section 1.1:  Add EVI, and PE.
2025-02-03
14 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2025-02-01
14 Mankamana Mishra
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  This draft had good amount of support across multiple vendors. There were good discussion in room and over mail as well. It is fair to say that it has broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Nokia and Juniper are vendors who have shown commitment to implement this spec. It had been notified that draft is part of roadmap for implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  It has intersection with multicast. but all the procedure are limited to scope of BESS working group.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document is extension of base EVPN related draft. there is No new MIB or YANG extension defined.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No, there is no YANG model defined in this draft.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  Did run IETF tool.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, document has been written well and clear. It is ready to move to next step.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    NA

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, and it has been shown in document properly.This draft defines procedures and encodings, hence its suitability for the standards track is justified and accepted by working group.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, IPR call was made and IPR were decleared.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    No, there are only 5 authors .

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    idnits were run

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    NA

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No, one of the reference draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11 is already in RFC editor queue.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    IANA section is consistent with body of the development .

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



NA

2025-01-31
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2025-01-30
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2025-01-30
14 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-14.txt
2025-01-30
14 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2025-01-30
14 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2025-01-15
13 Dirk Von Hugo Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dirk Von Hugo. Sent review to list.
2025-01-13
13 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Dirk Von Hugo
2025-01-10
13 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2025-01-07
13 Gunter Van de Velde Placed on agenda for telechat - 2025-02-06
2025-01-07
13 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot has been issued
2025-01-07
13 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2025-01-07
13 Gunter Van de Velde Created "Approve" ballot
2025-01-07
13 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2025-01-07
13 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot writeup was changed
2024-12-31
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-12-21
13 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-12-21
13 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2024-12-21
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2024-12-19
13 David Dong
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, 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/

the existing registration for:

Bit: 4
Name: Single Flow Group

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the EVPN ESI Label Extended Community Flags registry also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry group located at:

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

a single new flag will be registered as follows:

Bit Position: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: ESI-DCB Flag
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors suggest the value of 5 for this flag. Please note that specific values cannot be reserved. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

We understand 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions 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
2024-12-19
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-12-19
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2024-12-17
13 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-12-17
13 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-31):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, mankamis@cisco.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-31):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, mankamis@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN Networks) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - 'Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN
Networks'
  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 2024-12-31. 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


  In Ethernet Virtual Private Networks (EVPNs), IP multicast traffic
  replication and delivery play a crucial role in enabling efficient
  and scalable Layer 2 and Layer 3 services.  A common deployment
  scenario involves redundant multicast sources that ensure high
  availability and resiliency.  However, the presence of redundant
  sources can lead to duplicate IP multicast traffic in the network,
  causing inefficiencies and increased overhead.  This document
  specifies extensions to the EVPN multicast procedures that allow for
  the suppression of duplicate IP multicast traffic from redundant
  sources.  The proposed mechanisms enhance EVPN's capability to
  deliver multicast traffic efficiently while maintaining high
  availability.  These extensions are applicable to various EVPN
  deployment scenarios and provide guidelines to ensure consistent and
  predictable behavior across diverse network topologies.




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


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5672/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5671/





2024-12-17
13 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-12-17
13 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2024-12-17
13 Gunter Van de Velde Last call was requested
2024-12-17
13 Gunter Van de Velde Last call announcement was generated
2024-12-17
13 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot approval text was generated
2024-12-17
13 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot writeup was generated
2024-12-17
13 (System) Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed)
2024-12-17
13 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-12-16
13 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-13.txt
2024-12-16
13 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2024-12-16
13 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2024-12-13
12 Gunter Van de Velde Changed action holders to Zhaohui Zhang, Jayant Kotalwar, Wen Lin, Jorge Rabadan, Senthil Sathappan (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/lGvDguB27OIIksJwbSxo7w7Gr94/)
2024-12-12
12 (System) Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed)
2024-12-12
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-12-12
12 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-12.txt
2024-12-12
12 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2024-12-12
12 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2024-12-06
11 Gunter Van de Velde https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/NKIKpgbAxypmyZDB82u1ekW9wQg/
2024-12-06
11 (System) Changed action holders to Zhaohui Zhang, Jayant Kotalwar, Wen Lin, Jorge Rabadan, Senthil Sathappan (IESG state changed)
2024-12-06
11 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2024-11-13
11 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-11.txt
2024-11-13
11 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2024-11-13
11 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2024-10-23
10 Zheng Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Zheng Zhang. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-10-23
10 Zheng Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Zheng Zhang.
2024-10-08
10 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Zheng Zhang
2024-10-07
10 Gunter Van de Velde Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-10-07
10 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-09-12
10 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-09-12
10 Cindy Morgan Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-09-06
10 Mankamana Mishra
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  This draft had good amount of support across multiple vendors. There were good discussion in room and over mail as well. It is fair to say that it has broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  There were vendors who have plan to implement this draft.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  It has intersection with multicast. but all the procedure are limited to scope of BESS working group.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document is extension of base EVPN related draft. there is on new MIB , YANG extension defined.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No, there is no YANG model defined in this draft.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  Did run IETF tool.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, document has been written well and clear. It is ready to move to next step.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    NA

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, and it has been shown in document.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, IPR call was made and IPR were decleared.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    No, there are only 5 authors .

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    idnits were run

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    NA

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No, one of the reference draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11 is already in RFC editor queue.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    IANA section is consistent with body of the development .

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



NA

2024-09-06
10 Mankamana Mishra IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-09-06
10 Mankamana Mishra IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-09-06
10 (System) Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed)
2024-09-06
10 Mankamana Mishra Responsible AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde
2024-09-06
10 Mankamana Mishra Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-08-14
10 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-10.txt
2024-08-14
10 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2024-08-14
10 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2024-07-25
09 (System) Document has expired
2024-07-17
09 Mankamana Mishra
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  This draft had good amount of support across multiple vendors. There were good discussion in room and over mail as well. It is fair to say that it has broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No

3. 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  There were vendors who have plan to implement this draft.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  It has intersection with multicast. but all the procedure are limited to scope of BESS working group.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document is extension of base EVPN related draft. there is on new MIB , YANG extension defined.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  No, there is no YANG model defined in this draft.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  Did run IETF tool.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, document has been written well and clear. It is ready to move to next step.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    NA

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard, and it has been shown in document.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, IPR call was made and IPR were decleared.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    No, there are only 5 authors .

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    idnits were run

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    NA

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No, one of the reference draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11 is already in RFC editor queue.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    IANA section is consistent with body of the development .

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



NA

2024-01-22
09 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-09.txt
2024-01-22
09 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2024-01-22
09 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2024-01-08
08 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-08.txt
2024-01-08
08 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2024-01-08
08 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-12-22
07 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-07.txt
2023-12-22
07 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-12-22
07 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-06-27
06 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-06.txt
2023-06-27
06 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-06-27
06 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-05-19
05 Loa Andersson Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Loa Andersson. Sent review to list.
2023-05-08
05 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson
2023-05-08
05 Haomian Zheng Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Shuping Peng was rejected
2023-04-18
05 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-05.txt
2023-04-18
05 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2023-04-18
05 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2023-04-10
04 (System) Document has expired
2023-03-29
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Shuping Peng
2023-03-26
04 Stephane Litkowski Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2022-10-07
04 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-04.txt
2022-10-07
04 Jorge Rabadan New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2022-10-07
04 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2022-08-10
03 (System) Document has expired
2022-06-13
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source
2022-06-13
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source
2022-06-09
03 Stephane Litkowski Notification list changed to mankamis@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2022-06-09
03 Stephane Litkowski Document shepherd changed to Mankamana Prasad Mishra
2022-06-09
03 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2022-05-18
03 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-02-06
03 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-03.txt
2022-02-06
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jorge Rabadan)
2022-02-06
03 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2022-02-05
02 (System) Document has expired
2021-08-04
02 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-02.txt
2021-08-04
02 (System) New version approved
2021-08-04
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen , Jayant Kotalwar , Jorge Rabadan , Senthil Sathappan , Wen Lin , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-08-04
02 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2021-07-12
01 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-01.txt
2021-07-12
01 (System) New version approved
2021-07-12
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen , Jayant Kotalwar , Jorge Rabadan , Senthil Sathappan , Wen Lin , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-07-12
01 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision
2021-01-18
00 Stephane Litkowski This document now replaces draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source instead of None
2021-01-18
00 Jorge Rabadan New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-00.txt
2021-01-18
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-01-18
00 Jorge Rabadan Set submitter to "Jorge Rabadan ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: bess-chairs@ietf.org
2021-01-18
00 Jorge Rabadan Uploaded new revision