OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-05
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-05-05
|
05 | Andrew Alston | Awaiting new shepherd writeup. |
|
2022-05-05
|
05 | Andrew Alston | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Publication Requested |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Changed action holders to Andrew Alston |
|
2022-03-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Andrew Alston |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for <a href="draft-psenak-bier-ospfv3-extensions">/doc/draft-psenak-bier-ospfv3-extensions/</a> |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2021-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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. This document defines extensions to OSPFv3. 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 OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocol extensions required for BIER with MPLS encapsulation [RFC8296]. Support for other encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document. The use of multiple encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document. Working Group Summary There is a solid consensus for this document in both the WG LC and adoption call. Document Quality There is a solid consensus for this document in the WG. It is ready for publication. No implementation is announced in the WG. No formal language is used in the document. No aspects of the document required expert review. Two OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs need IETF Review or IESG Approval. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Huaimo Chen. The Responsible Area Director is Alvaro Retana. (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 shepherd has reviewed version 5 of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions and the emails in the mailing list. The shepherd believes that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. The shepherd has some editorial comments below: a. In the end of section 1. Introduction, "as described in [RFC2119]." should be "as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here." b. In section 4. IANA Considerations, the first sentence, "sub-TLV" should be "Sub-TLVs" (to be consistent with the name of registry). (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The shepherd thinks that the document should be reviewed by a LSR chair. (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 shepherd does not have any concerns. (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? There is not any IPR disclosure. The shepherd emailed the authors and got two responses. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? The WG consensus for this document is very solid. The WG as a whole. (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. The Document Shepherd has found Two nits. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8362], [RFC8296]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. 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: 'RFC5340' is defined on line 385, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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 (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). The document requests two new allocations from the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry defined in [RFC8362]. These allocations need IETF Review or IESG Approval. (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. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2021-11-22
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
|
2021-11-22
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2021-11-22
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | Notification list changed to huaimo.chen@futurewei.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-11-22
|
05 | Greg Shepherd | Document shepherd changed to Huaimo Chen |
|
2021-11-19
|
05 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-05.txt |
|
2021-11-19
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Nagendra Nainar) |
|
2021-11-19
|
05 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-11-19
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2021-05-18
|
04 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-04.txt |
|
2021-05-18
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Nagendra Nainar) |
|
2021-05-18
|
04 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-20
|
03 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-03.txt |
|
2020-11-20
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-11-20
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Nainar <naikumar@cisco.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, bier-chairs@ietf.org, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> |
|
2020-11-20
|
03 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-24
|
02 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-02.txt |
|
2020-05-24
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-05-24
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Nainar <naikumar@cisco.com>, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> |
|
2020-05-24
|
02 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-11-24
|
01 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-01.txt |
|
2019-11-24
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-11-24
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Nagendra Kumar <naikumar@cisco.com> |
|
2019-11-24
|
01 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-11-24
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2019-05-23
|
00 | Greg Shepherd | This document now replaces draft-psenak-bier-ospfv3-extensions instead of None |
|
2019-05-23
|
00 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-00.txt |
|
2019-05-23
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2019-05-11
|
00 | Nagendra Nainar | Set submitter to "Nagendra Kumar Nainar <naikumar@cisco.com>", replaces to draft-psenak-bier-ospfv3-extensions and sent approval email to group chairs: bier-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2019-05-11
|
00 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |