Shepherd writeup
rfc8401-11

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-06 is Experimental. This is indicated on the title page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

HB> This draft presents extension needed for isis to advertise BIER information with in a bier domain and its subdomains. This information can be used to build a Bit Index Forwarding Table for BIER, which in order is used for forwarding multicast packets with in a BIER domain or subdomain. The ISIS extension BIER sub-tlv carries the information for BIER sub-domain that the router participates in. This sub-tlv includes multiple sub-sub-tlvs with label range and a bit string length for certain <MT,SD>.   

Working Group Summary

HB> The draft has been well recived. 

Document Quality

 HB> base on the IETF discussions there are implementation of this draft and/or strong roadmap commitment from other vendors. 

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

HB> Hooman Bidgoli is the shepherd and Alia Atlas is the Director

1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

HB> Hooman Bidgoli, Yes he has reviewed the version 6 of bier-isis-extension
There are some unclear sections in the draft which could use some polishing.


   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

HB> This document has been reviewed, that said there are minor areas which is in need of polishing.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

HB> Due diligence was done with this respect. 

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

HB> Following sections might need some ironing:

Section 3: is there a reason that sub-sub-tlvs are not sequential? i.e. type 1 and 3 and no type 2.

Section 4.1: An ISIS signaled BIER domain is aligned with the scope of distribution of BFR-prefixes that identify the BFRs within ISIS.
Comment: should it be BIER sub-domain? As bier-architecture aligns BFR-PREFIX to a subdomain.

Section 4.1: The mapping of sub-domains to topologies MUST be consistent within a BIER flooding domain.
Comment: what is a BIER flooding domain here? The terminology is not consistence with bier-architecture, might be worth a while to have a sentence explaining it.

Section 5.1: All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER sub-TLVs MUST advertise the same sub-domain within the same multi-topology.
Comment: This means one MT can have multiple SDs. As an example, <MT1, SD1>, <MT1, SD2>. But <MT2, SD1> is not legal, since SD1 is part of MT1. An example might be appropriate here as it is not to clear.



  

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

HB> The WG consensus for this draft is very solid.

   (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

HB> Negative

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Running the idnits…  

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:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as
     'draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-06', but the file name used is
     'bier-isis-v6'


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

     No issues found here.

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

     No issues found here.

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

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

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
     draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-08


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


   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

HB> Yes the document is split to normative and informative references. There are 2 normative draft that are ready to advance namely draft-ietf-bier-mpls-ecnapsulation-9 and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extension-8. 

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

HB> There are some questions remaining as per comments above. Why the the sub-sub-tlvs types not sequential.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

HB> Yes
Back