OSPFv2 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-11-06
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-08-27
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-08-21
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2018-08-01
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2018-06-04
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-06-04
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2018-06-01
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-06-01
|
18 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18.txt |
2018-06-01
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-01
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2018-06-01
|
18 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-01
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2018-05-31
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2018-05-31
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-05-31
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-05-31
|
17 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-05-31
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-05-31
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-05-31
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-05-31
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-05-31
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-05-31
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-05-30
|
17 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS |
2018-05-30
|
17 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-04-06
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alvaro Retana has been changed to Yes from No Objection |
2018-04-03
|
17 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-17.txt |
2018-04-03
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-03
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2018-04-03
|
17 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-27
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com> |
2018-03-26
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2018-03-21
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2018-03-12
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT points. |
2018-03-12
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-03-12
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-16.txt |
2018-03-12
|
16 | (System) | Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received |
2018-03-12
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-08
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2018-02-23
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-02-23
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-02-23
|
15 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-15.txt |
2018-02-23
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-23
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2018-02-23
|
15 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] (1) The specification of the sub-TLVs still needs some work: - MT-ID: What should a receiver do if the MT-ID is in the … [Ballot comment] (1) The specification of the sub-TLVs still needs some work: - MT-ID: What should a receiver do if the MT-ID is in the 128-255 range? - "BFR-id...If the BFR is not locally configured with a valid BFR-id, the value of this field is set to invalid BFR-id per [RFC8279]." I looked in rfc8279 for the text about "invalid BFR-id", but found this instead: "The value 0 is not a legal BFR-id." I assume that in this case "invalid" is the same as "not legal". It would be nice to be consistent. - "When such duplication is detected all BFRs advertising duplicates MUST be treated as if they did not advertise a valid BFR-id." How are BFRs that advertise an invalid BFR-id treated? - What should a receiver do if the BSL is set to a value not supported in rfc8296? - "Label ranges within all BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not advertise any BIER sub-TLVs." If an overlap is detected, the result is that *all* BFRs (advertising the overlap) are treated as if the BIER sub-TLV was not advertised, right? The text is not clear as to whether the result applies to all or just the BFR that advertised last (and resulted in the detection happening). - "All advertised labels MUST be valid..." What is a "valid" label? - For the IPA field: "Values are defined in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry." Please add a reference to this registry. (2) Security Considerations - I support Eric's DISCUSS. It seems to me that an attacker could simply advertise duplicate BFR-IDs or overlapping label ranges and have a significant impact on the network. (3) IANA Considerations Section 2.2: "The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the BIER Sub-TLV." However, the type for this sub-sub-TLV is allocated from the OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLV registry...and not from a new registry for sub-TLVs for the BIER Sub-TLV. |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-02-22
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-14.txt |
2018-02-22
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-22
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2018-02-22
|
14 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-22
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] > BAR: Single octet BIER Algorithm. 0 is the only supported value > defined in this document and represents … [Ballot comment] > BAR: Single octet BIER Algorithm. 0 is the only supported value > defined in this document and represents Shortest Path First (SPF) > algorithm based on IGP link metric. This is the standard shortest > path algorithm as computed by the OSPF protocol. Other values may > be defined in the future. I have the same comment regarding BAR as I made for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions: I expected to find a registry for BAR in the IANA section. Does some other document establish this registry? If so, is 0 already registered? If "no" and "no", then this document needs to do both. If "yes" and "no", then this document need to register "0". If "yes" and "yes", then the phrase "in this document" needs to be replaced by "in [RFCxxxx]". ---------- Typically, for reserved fields, specifications ensure the future ability to use the fields in a backwards-compatible way by requiring such fields to be a known value (typically zero) on transmission, and requiring them to be ignored on reception. Please consider doing this. ---------- Please update your example text in section 2.3 to use IPv6 addresses instead of (or in addition to) IPv4 addresses. See https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for guidance. ---------- Section 4: > The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended > Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684]. I see only two requests rather than three. ---------- I also have a small, general cosmetic nit: the bit numbers in the diagrams appear to be shifted to the left by one space; e.g.: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Typically, these types of diagrams number the "-" segments (which represent bits) rather than the "+" segments (which represent the divisions between bits). |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the Gen-ART reviewer's comments. |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I support Ekr's DISCUSS §1: The document has a few lowercase instances of "must" and "should". Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC … [Ballot comment] I support Ekr's DISCUSS §1: The document has a few lowercase instances of "must" and "should". Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot discuss] * Section 2.2 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV This should be straightforward to fix but it is not clear if the label range is … [Ballot discuss] * Section 2.2 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV This should be straightforward to fix but it is not clear if the label range is allowed to wrap around (overflow) or not past the 20 bit space. e.g. is a Label=2^20-X with a MSI of X or larger legal? I was hoping that RFC8296 would have covered this but unfortunately it leaves it to this document (and the IS-IS document) to specify. |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * Section 2.1. BIER Sub-TLV - No handling specified for the Reserved field in this sub-TLV. Assuming, set to zero and ignore on … [Ballot comment] * Section 2.1. BIER Sub-TLV - No handling specified for the Reserved field in this sub-TLV. Assuming, set to zero and ignore on receipt? Please specify. - I think there might be an IANA registry required for the "BIER Algorithm" to keep track of new algorithms (if any) - typo: s/BRF/BFR/ * Section 2.2 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV "Max SI : A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier (section 1 of [RFC8296])" There is no definition for "Maximum Set Identifier" in RFC8296. Did you just mean "Set Identifier"? If not, can you clarify what you mean? |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Since this adds an extension to OSPF, I think the security considerations may be adequate. I see why the BIER specific RFC references … [Ballot comment] Since this adds an extension to OSPF, I think the security considerations may be adequate. I see why the BIER specific RFC references were not added, but it may be helpful with framing in the security considerations section when this OSPF extension is used. |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I have a few questions and some nits. 1: The shepherd report says that the AD has noted a large number of authors … [Ballot comment] I have a few questions and some nits. 1: The shepherd report says that the AD has noted a large number of authors - was there discussion to change this? 2: Related: The shepherd writeup says: "Didn’t see IPR disclosures on the alias archive. Emailed the authors, got responses from 2." -- this means that 5 hadn't responded. Trusting AD to have checked this. 3: Nit: " Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol for its operation" -- I think that "neither" can be removed. 4: Nit: Section 1: "BIER architecture requires routers" -> "The BIER architecture requires routers" 5: Section 2.1: "advertised in the BIER sub-TLV by other BFRs is in conflict with the association locally configured on the receiving router, the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored." -- must be ignored and reported, or just ignored? 6: Section 3. Security Considerations "Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures." -- I am not a security AD, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm predicting a DISCUSS on this -- it seems inadequate... |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2018-02-21
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] Document: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12.txt I have not yet reviewed this document in detail: Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV permutations do … [Ballot discuss] Document: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12.txt I have not yet reviewed this document in detail: Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures. This is not an adequate security considerations section. What is your threat model? What attacks are possible? What are not? It may be the case that this is all covered in other documents, and you just need to point to them, but the reader doesn't know that, so this needs to be documented. Adam Montville's SECDIR review which makes some of the same points and lists a few specific items to examine. |
2018-02-21
|
13 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-02-20
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-02-20
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ The following temporary assignments will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 9 Description: BIER Sub-TLV Value: 10 Description: BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV IANA Question --> There is also a temporary registration in that same registry as follows: Value: 11 Description: BIER Tree Type Sub-TLV If the authors' intent was to also make this temporary registration permanent, then the IANA Considerations section of the current document should be changed to reflect this. The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action 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 only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-02-20
|
13 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-13.txt |
2018-02-20
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-19
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2018-02-19
|
13 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Robert Sparks | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 4. IANA Considerations The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended I only see 2 allocations, not 3: Prefix … [Ballot comment] 4. IANA Considerations The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended I only see 2 allocations, not 3: Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684]. BIER Sub-TLV: 9 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 10 |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 4. IANA Considerations The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended I only see 2 allocations, not 2: Prefix … [Ballot comment] 4. IANA Considerations The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended I only see 2 allocations, not 2: Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684]. BIER Sub-TLV: 9 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 10 |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] 1) From the shepherd write-up „The main comment I have on the document is that it should be renamed to "OSPFv2 Extensions for … [Ballot comment] 1) From the shepherd write-up „The main comment I have on the document is that it should be renamed to "OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER”. -> I agree. 2) Also from the shepherd write-up: „Didn’t see IPR disclosures on the alias archive. Emailed the authors, got responses from 2.“ -> Did the others confirm by now? 3) Please use rfc8174 boilerplate. 4) Editorial nit (that will also be cought by the RFC editor): the reference to RFC2328 should be removed from the abstract and added in the Intro. 5) Editorial comment: in section 2.2: Wouldn’t it makes sense to also display the 4 reserved bits at the end of the Label in the diagram? Also wondering why those bits have not been used for the Bit String Length but that’s not important… 6) maybe: s/specified in section 2 of [RFC8296]/specified in section 2.1.2 of [RFC8296]/ 7) The document should maybe provide further guidance on how the stated goal in the security considerations section could be achieved. |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-02-19
|
12 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-02-15
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
2018-02-15
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
2018-02-14
|
12 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12.txt |
2018-02-14
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-14
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2018-02-14
|
12 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-13
|
11 | Adam Montville | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Adam Montville. Sent review to list. |
2018-02-12
|
11 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-11.txt |
2018-02-12
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-12
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2018-02-12
|
11 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-22): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bier@ietf.org, Reshad Rahman , akatlas@gmail.com, rrahman@cisco.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-22): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bier@ietf.org, Reshad Rahman , akatlas@gmail.com, rrahman@cisco.com, draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (OSPF Extensions for BIER) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG (bier) to consider the following document: - 'OSPF Extensions for BIER' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-02-22. 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 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow state. Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet. Such header contains a bit-string in which each bit represents exactly one BFER to forward the packet to. The set of BFERs to which the multicast packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by the according set of bits set in BIER packet header. This document describes the OSPF protocol extension required for BIER with MPLS encapsulation. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc8296: Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-MPLS Networks (Experimental - IETF stream) rfc8279: Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) (Experimental - IETF stream) |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-02-22 |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10 shepherd write-up. : As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document : Shepherd Write-Up. : : Changes are … draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10 shepherd write-up. : 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? Standards Track. Yes it is indicated in the title page header. : (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement : Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent : examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved : documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: : : Technical Summary This document describes the OSPFv2 protocol extension for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) with MPLS encapsulation. : Working Group Summary This document was presented and discussed at IETF91, IETF92 and IETF95. Discussions on whether this belongs to OSPF WG, AD decided that it belongs in BIER WG. There were some questions on whether it should be Experimental track, there was consensus that Standards Track is correct. There were discussions on whether there was a mismatch with an example in the MPLS encapsulation draft, that was resolved by clarifying the text in that draft. The discussions on IPv6 support resulted in the decision to do a separate document for OSPFv3 BIER Extensions. There is one outstanding discussion on the BIER alias regarding allowing 0 for the label range size. : Document Quality Major vendors on the author list have working implementations or are working on the implementation of the extensions. Acee Lindem has done a thorough review of the document. Alias Atlas has done an early AD review. The main comment I have on the document is that it should be renamed to "OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER”. : Personnel The Document Shepherd is Reshad Rahman. The Responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas. : (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by : the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready : for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to : the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed the email chains and verified that all comments have been addressed appropriately. The document shepherd has also reviewed the changes in each revision as the document has progressed through the WG. : (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or : breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None. : (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from : broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, : DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that : took place. Review from OSPF WG was done by Acee Lindem. : (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd : has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the : IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable : with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really : is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and : has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those : concerns here. The AD has already pointed out the large number of authors and has suggested that the number be reduced. : (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR : disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 : and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Didn’t see IPR disclosures on the alias archive. Emailed the authors, got responses from 2. : (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? : If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR : disclosures. None. : (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it : represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others : being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Consensus appears to be very solid. Whole WG is on board. : (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme : discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate : email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a : separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. : (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this : document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts : Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be : thorough. idnits 2.15.01 /tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt: /tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(331): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 47; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771. /tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(341): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 7; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771. /tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(342): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 55; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771. /tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(346): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 35; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771. /tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(347): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 46; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771. /tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(351): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 21; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771. 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 6 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 4, 2017) is 59 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC7120' is defined on line 339, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Cod...' == Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 348, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Wri...' == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-architecture has been published as RFC 8279 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-ietf-bier-architecture (ref. 'I-D.ietf-bier-architecture') == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation has been published as RFC 8296 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation (ref. 'I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation') Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). : (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review : criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A : (13) Have all references within this document been identified as : either normative or informative? Yes. : (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for : advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative : references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. : (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? : If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in : the Last Call procedure. See idnits in (11) : (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any : existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed : in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not : listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the : part of the document where the relationship of this document to the : other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, : explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. : (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations : section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the : document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes : are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. : Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly : identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a : detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that : allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a : reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA Considerations refers to RFC 7684 where is defined the registry for OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLV. There has been early/temporary allocation of codepoints for the new sub-TLVs: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-sub-tlvs Value 11 is not needed anymore since BIER Tree type sub-TLV has been removed. : (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future : allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find : useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. : (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document : Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal : language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | Cleared WGLC. One minor change required: Consensus is: 1)Allow 0 as a valid value 2)Rename “Label Range Size” to “Maximum Segment ID” |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | Cleared WGLC. One minor change required: Consensus is: 1)Allow 0 as a valid value 2)Rename “Label Range Size” to “Maximum Segment ID” |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | Cleared WGLC. One minor change required: Consensus is: 1)Allow 0 as a valid value 2)Rename “Label Range Size” to “Maximum Segment ID” |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-02-08
|
10 | Greg Shepherd | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-02-01
|
10 | Reshad Rahman | Changed document writeup |
2017-12-04
|
10 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt |
2017-12-04
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-12-04
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2017-12-04
|
10 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-22
|
09 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-09.txt |
2017-10-22
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-22
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda , bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-10-22
|
09 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-15
|
08 | Tony Przygienda | Notification list changed to Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com> |
2017-10-15
|
08 | Tony Przygienda | Document shepherd changed to Reshad Rahman |
2017-10-03
|
08 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-08.txt |
2017-10-03
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-03
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2017-10-03
|
08 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-03
|
07 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt |
2017-07-03
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-03
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2017-07-03
|
07 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-20
|
06 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-06.txt |
2017-06-20
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-20
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda |
2017-06-20
|
06 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-14
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER and OSPF WGs due to the scope of the work. |
2017-06-14
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-03-13
|
05 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05.txt |
2017-03-13
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-13
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda , bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-03-13
|
05 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-22
|
04 | Peter Psenak | New version approved |
2016-09-22
|
04 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-04.txt |
2016-09-22
|
04 | Peter Psenak | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Tony Przygienda" , "Andrew Dolganow" , "IJsbrand Wijnands" , "Sam … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Tony Przygienda" , "Andrew Dolganow" , "IJsbrand Wijnands" , "Sam Aldrin" , "Peter Psenak" , bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-09-22
|
04 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-14
|
03 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-03.txt |
2016-09-14
|
03 | Peter Psenak | New version approved |
2016-09-14
|
03 | Peter Psenak | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Tony Przygienda" , "Andrew Dolganow" , "IJsbrand Wijnands" , "Sam … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Tony Przygienda" , "Andrew Dolganow" , "IJsbrand Wijnands" , "Sam Aldrin" , "Peter Psenak" , bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-09-14
|
03 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-03-21
|
02 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-02.txt |
2015-10-19
|
01 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-01.txt |
2015-04-27
|
00 | Greg Shepherd | This document now replaces draft-psenak-ospf-bier-extensions instead of None |
2015-04-27
|
00 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00.txt |