BFD Encapsulated in Large Packets
draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-01-17
|
16 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] The -15/-16 version addresses my discuss point well, thanks for this. |
2025-01-17
|
16 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Zaheduzzaman Sarker has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2025-01-15
|
16 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-16.txt |
2025-01-15
|
16 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2025-01-15
|
16 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2025-01-13
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke (IESG state changed) |
2025-01-13
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2025-01-13
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2025-01-13
|
15 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-15.txt |
2025-01-13
|
15 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2025-01-13
|
15 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2025-01-09
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jeffrey Haas, Albert Fu (IESG state changed) |
2025-01-09
|
14 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2025-01-08
|
14 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] What John said, which is what Warren said, which is what Jim said. |
2025-01-08
|
14 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2025-01-08
|
14 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Brian Trammell for his TSVART review. As this specification says - "The contents of this … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Brian Trammell for his TSVART review. As this specification says - "The contents of this additional payload MUST be zero" for bfd.PaddedPduSize. I would like to discuss the consequences of not having all zeros in the additional payload - shall this still be treated as valid bfd payload and parsed but the MTU discovery would fail or shall it raise some protocol violation error? I didn't find any error handling in this specification. |
2025-01-08
|
14 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] One more comment - if the intention is to have this bfd in large packets to discover the path MTU, why don't we … [Ballot comment] One more comment - if the intention is to have this bfd in large packets to discover the path MTU, why don't we say so in the abstract of this document. |
2025-01-08
|
14 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2025-01-07
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Dan Romascanu for the GENART review. |
2025-01-07
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2025-01-07
|
14 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Copying Warren’s copy of Jim's "Nicely written document." |
2025-01-07
|
14 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2025-01-07
|
14 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot comment] Section 6, Security Considerations: As both Brian Trammell and Joe Salowey suggest, please add a sentence for implementers to take care when there … [Ballot comment] Section 6, Security Considerations: As both Brian Trammell and Joe Salowey suggest, please add a sentence for implementers to take care when there are dynamic packet sizes. Also add a link to the BFD RFC (RFC 5880). |
2025-01-07
|
14 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley |
2025-01-06
|
14 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Copying Jim's "Nicely written document." |
2025-01-06
|
14 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2025-01-06
|
14 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2025-01-06
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2025-01-05
|
14 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2025-01-05
|
14 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] Section 5.2, paragraph 21 > leaf pdu-size { > if-feature "padding"; > … [Ballot comment] Section 5.2, paragraph 21 > leaf pdu-size { > if-feature "padding"; > type padded-pdu-size; > description > "If set, this configures the padded PDU size for the > Asynchronous mode BFD session. By default, no additional > padding is added to such packets."; > } The description should say that the padded data is all zeroes, just as it says in the content of the draft. Once the YANG module is stripped from the document, implementors are only looking at the YANG module for guidance. Section 6.1, paragraph 1 > The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data > that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such > as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer > is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure > transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer > is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS > [RFC8446]. The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] > provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or > RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or > RESTCONF protocol operations and content. This particular paragraph of the template has undergone a few updates. See Section 3.7.1 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-21. Please adjust the text here to reflect those changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which has been taken out of service: * http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd Section 8, paragraph 1 > The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Mahesh Jethandani, > Robert Raszuk, and Ketan Talaulikar, for their valuable feedback on > this proposal. s/Jethandani/Jethanandani/ Section 4.1, paragraph 3 > d follow normal BFD procedures with regards to not having received control p > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Use "in regard to", "with regard to", or more simply "regarding". Section 4.3, paragraph 3 > able MTU for the session is able to be used. 4.5. Equal Cost Multiple Paths ( > ^^^^^^^ Avoid the passive voice after "to be able to". |
2025-01-05
|
14 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2025-01-04
|
14 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-12-27
|
14 | Joseph Salowey | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. Sent review to list. |
2024-12-27
|
14 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot comment] Nicely written document. |
2024-12-27
|
14 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-12-17
|
14 | Brian Trammell | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Trammell. Sent review to list. |
2024-12-09
|
14 | David Dong | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-12-09
|
14 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2024-12-09
|
14 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2025-01-09 |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot has been issued |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-12-09
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke (IESG state changed) |
2024-12-09
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-12-09
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-14.txt |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-12-09
|
14 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-12-09
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-12-09
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-12-09
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | A revised I-D is required to address YANG doctors' review and IANA comment, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/mCknpTnO-8bW-yD0TGFsKSfbzJQ/ |
2024-12-09
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jeffrey Haas, Albert Fu (IESG state changed) |
2024-12-09
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-12-09
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-12-06
|
13 | David Dong | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, Section 7 states that there are no IANA Actions that need completion. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. IANA Question --> Should the YANG Module documented in Section 5.2 of this draft be registered in the YANG Module Names registry and urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-large be registered in the namespaces of the IANA XML registry? If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. 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 |
2024-12-06
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-12-06
|
13 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Review has been revised by Dan Romascanu. |
2024-12-06
|
13 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list. |
2024-12-04
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell |
2024-12-01
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2024-11-25
|
13 | Jenny Bui | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-11-25
|
13 | Jenny Bui | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bfd-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, reshad@yahoo.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bfd-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, reshad@yahoo.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (BFD Encapsulated in Large Packets) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection WG (bfd) to consider the following document: - 'BFD Encapsulated in Large Packets' 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 2024-12-09. 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 The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol is commonly used to verify connectivity between two systems. BFD packets are typically very small. It is desirable in some circumstances to know that not only is the path between two systems reachable, but also that it is capable of carrying a payload of a particular size. This document specifies how to implement such a mechanism using BFD in Asynchronous mode. YANG modules for managing this mechanism are also defined in this document. These YANG modules augment the existing BFD YANG modules defined in RFC 9314. The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) (RFC 8342). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-11-25
|
13 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-11-25
|
13 | Jenny Bui | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | Last call was requested |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | Last call announcement was changed |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-11-23
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke (IESG state changed) |
2024-11-23
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-13.txt |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-11-23
|
13 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-10-16
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | One orphan SHOULD to be fixed, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/XGfghj7lR6AGzT6d2MNn4tJin9I/ |
2024-10-16
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jeffrey Haas, Albert Fu (IESG state changed) |
2024-10-16
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-10-15
|
12 | Reshad Rahman | > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## Document History >1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a … > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## 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 document reached broad agreement in the BFD WG. >2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. The only unaddressed feedback was (from Robert Raszuk) that the solution does not work well with ECMP. This is not specific to this document but is a general issue with BFD multi-hop. The chairs have chatted about whether BFD WG should tackle ECMP for BFD multi-hop, we will discuss further at IETF120 (update on 2024-09-02: that discussion hasn't happened yet). Update (2024-10-15): To clarify: this document doesn't change the fundamentals of BFD and while Robert's observation is correct, this document follows what is already done in BFD multi-hop. >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 is an implementation in JUNOS. No known potential implementers. No report of existing implementations. ## 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. YANG Doctors and SecDir reviews have taken place. >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. YANG Doctors review has taken place. >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]? 0 errors and 0 warnings. Yes the YANG module complies with NMDA. >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. N/A >## 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 to all the above. >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? No such issues have been identified. >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 (this document specifies a protocol extension that needs to be interoperable, i.e. large BFD packets must not be dropped). Datatracker's "Intended RFC status" has been updated >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. Jeff Haas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KB8qkWlXGmVwUdnBicDSA3oIe6Q/ Albert Fu: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ >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. Yes. Only 2 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.) None. >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? None. >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. None. >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? None. >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 status change. >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]). N/A >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. N/A [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/ |
2024-10-11
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke (IESG state changed) |
2024-10-11
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-10-11
|
12 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-12.txt |
2024-10-11
|
12 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-10-11
|
12 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-09-02
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## Document History >1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a … > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## 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 document reached broad agreement in the BFD WG. >2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. The only unaddressed feedback was (from Robert Raszuk) that the solution does not work well with ECMP. This is not specific to this document but is a general issue with BFD multi-hop. The chairs have chatted about whether BFD WG should tackle ECMP for BFD multi-hop, we will discuss further at IETF120 (update: that discussion hasn't happened yet). >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 is an implementation in JUNOS. No known potential implementers. No report of existing implementations. ## 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. YANG Doctors and SecDir reviews have taken place. >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. YANG Doctors review has taken place. >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]? 0 errors and 0 warnings. Yes the YANG module complies with NMDA. >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. N/A >## 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 to all the above. >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? No such issues have been identified. >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 (this document specifies a protocol extension that needs to be interoperable, i.e. large BFD packets must not be dropped). Datatracker's "Intended RFC status" has been updated >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. Jeff Haas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KB8qkWlXGmVwUdnBicDSA3oIe6Q/ Albert Fu: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ >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. Yes. Only 2 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.) None. >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? None. >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. None. >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? None. >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 status change. >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]). N/A >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. N/A [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/ |
2024-09-02
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## Document History >1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a … > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## 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 document reached broad agreement in the BFD WG. >2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. The only unaddressed feedback was (from Robert Raszuk) that the solution does not work well with ECMP. This is not specific to this document but is a general issue with BFD multi-hop. The chairs have chatted about whether BFD WG should tackle ECMP for BFD multi-hop, we will discuss further at IETF120 (update that discussion hasn't happened yet). >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 is an implementation in JUNOS. No known potential implementers. No report of existing implementations. ## 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. YANG Doctors and SecDir reviews have taken place. >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. YANG Doctors review has taken place. >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]? 0 errors and 0 warnings. Yes the YANG module complies with NMDA. >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. N/A >## 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 to all the above. >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? No such issues have been identified. >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 (this document specifies a protocol extension that needs to be interoperable, i.e. large BFD packets must not be dropped). Datatracker's "Intended RFC status" has been updated >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. Jeff Haas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KB8qkWlXGmVwUdnBicDSA3oIe6Q/ Albert Fu: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ >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. Yes. Only 2 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.) None. >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? None. >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. None. >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? None. >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 status change. >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]). N/A >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. N/A [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/ |
2024-08-14
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | Alternate AD review sent to authors and BFD list https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/6wAPdJ0v_adUZKxinMXG_4Pj6FQ/ |
2024-08-14
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jeffrey Haas, Éric Vyncke, Albert Fu (IESG state changed) |
2024-08-14
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2024-08-14
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | Changed action holders to Éric Vyncke |
2024-08-14
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | Shepherding AD changed to Éric Vyncke |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## Document History >1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a … > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## 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 document reached broad agreement in the BFD WG. >2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. The only unaddressed feedback was (from Robert Raszuk) that the solution does not work well with ECMP. This is not specific to this document but is a general issue with BFD multi-hop. The chairs have chatted about whether BFD WG should tackle ECMP forBFD multi-hop, we will discuss further at the next IETF. >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 is an implementation in JUNOS. No known potential implementers. No report of existing implementations. ## 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. YANG Doctors and SecDir reviews have taken place. >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. YANG Doctors review has taken place. >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]? 0 errors and 0 warnings. Yes the YANG module complies with NMDA. >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. N/A >## 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 to all the above. >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? No such issues have been identified. >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. Datatracker's "Intended RFC status" has been updated >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. Jeff Haas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KB8qkWlXGmVwUdnBicDSA3oIe6Q/ Albert Fu: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ >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. Yes. Only 2 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.) None. >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? None. >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. None. >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? None. >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 status change. >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]). N/A >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. N/A [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/ |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-06-07
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed) |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Notification list changed to reshad@yahoo.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Document shepherd changed to Reshad Rahman |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## Document History >1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a … > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## 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 document reached broad agreement in the BFD WG. >2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. The only unaddressed feedback was (from Robert Raszuk) that the solution does not work well with ECMP. This is not specific to this document but is a general issue with BFD multi-hop. The chairs have chatted about whether BFD WG should tackle ECMP forBFD multi-hop, we will discuss further at the next IETF. >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 is an implementation in JUNOS. No known potential implementers. No report of existing implementations. ## 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. YANG Doctors and SecDir reviews have taken place. >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. YANG Doctors review has taken place. >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]? 0 errors and 0 warnings. Yes the YANG module complies with NMDA. >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. N/A >## 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 to all the above. >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? No such issues have been identified. >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. Datatracker's "Intended RFC status" has been updated >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. Jeff Haas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KB8qkWlXGmVwUdnBicDSA3oIe6Q/ Albert Fu: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ >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. Yes. Only 2 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.) None. >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? None. >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. None. >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? None. >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 status change. >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]). N/A >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. N/A [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/ |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## Document History > 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of … > # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents > ## 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 document reached broad agreement in the BFD WG. > 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. The only unaddressed feedback was (from Robert Raszuk) that the solution does not work well with ECMP. This is not specific to this document but is a general issue with BFD multi-hop. The chairs have chatted about whether BFD WG should tackle ECMP forBFD multi-hop, we will discuss further at the next IETF. > 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 is an implementation in JUNOS. No known potential implementers. No report of existing implementations. ## 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. YANG Doctors and SecDir reviews have taken place. > 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. YANG Doctors review has taken place. > 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]? 0 errors and 0 warnings. Yes the YANG module complies with NMDA. > 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. N/A > ## 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 to all the above. > 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? No such issues have been identified. > 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. Datatracker's "Intended RFC status" has been updated > 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. Jeff Haas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KB8qkWlXGmVwUdnBicDSA3oIe6Q/ Albert Fu: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/0yfGFB-ywYQMQWledrRRLXhrVYY/ > 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. Yes. Only 2 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.) None. > 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? None. > 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. None. > 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? None. > 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 status change. > 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]). N/A > 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. N/A [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/ |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-06-07
|
11 | Joseph Salowey | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. Sent review to list. |
2024-05-28
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Reshad to do shepherd write-up. |
2024-05-28
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2024-05-28
|
11 | Reshad Rahman | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2024-05-28
|
11 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-11.txt |
2024-05-28
|
11 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-05-28
|
11 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-23
|
10 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-10.txt |
2024-05-23
|
10 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-05-23
|
10 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-22
|
09 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-09.txt |
2024-05-22
|
09 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-05-22
|
09 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-22
|
08 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-08.txt |
2024-05-22
|
08 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-05-22
|
08 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-18
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2024-05-12
|
07 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list. |
2024-05-10
|
07 | Reshad Rahman | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2024-05-09
|
07 | Reshad Rahman | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2024-05-09
|
07 | Reshad Rahman | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2024-05-09
|
07 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2024-05-08
|
07 | Reshad Rahman | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2024-04-09
|
07 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-07.txt |
2024-04-09
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-09
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Fu , Jeffrey Haas |
2024-04-09
|
07 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-09
|
06 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-06.txt |
2024-04-09
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-09
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Fu , Jeffrey Haas |
2024-04-09
|
06 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-30
|
05 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-05.txt |
2024-01-30
|
05 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-01-30
|
05 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-30
|
04 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-04.txt |
2024-01-30
|
04 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-01-30
|
04 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-28
|
03 | Jeffrey Haas | Changed document external resources from: None to: github_repo https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/bfd-large-packets |
2024-01-28
|
03 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-03.txt |
2024-01-28
|
03 | Jeffrey Haas | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Jeffrey Haas) |
2024-01-28
|
03 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-04
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-11-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-02.txt |
2019-11-01
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-01
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeffrey Haas , Albert Fu |
2019-11-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-27
|
01 | Reshad Rahman | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-08-26
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-01.txt |
2019-08-26
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-26
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeffrey Haas , Albert Fu |
2019-08-26
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-26
|
00 | Reshad Rahman | This document now replaces draft-haas-bfd-large-packets instead of None |
2019-02-26
|
00 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-00.txt |
2019-02-26
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-02-26
|
00 | Jeffrey Haas | Set submitter to "Jeffrey Haas ", replaces to draft-haas-bfd-large-packets and sent approval email to group chairs: bfd-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-02-26
|
00 | Jeffrey Haas | Uploaded new revision |