Skip to main content

PIM Signaling Through BIER Core
draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-12

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-01-26
12 (System) Document has expired
2022-01-26
12 (System) IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching
2021-08-17
12 Alvaro Retana Removed all action holders (The document is with the WG.)
2021-08-17
12 Alvaro Retana Tags Waiting for Referenced Document, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2021-08-17
12 Alvaro Retana IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication
2021-08-17
12 Alvaro Retana
[email sent to bier-chairs -- transcribed here for the record.]

Greg/Tony:

Hi!  I hope the two of you are doing well.


I just came off …
[email sent to bier-chairs -- transcribed here for the record.]

Greg/Tony:

Hi!  I hope the two of you are doing well.


I just came off a call with the authors of this document -- Nabeel and Stig were also there.  As you have seen from my review comments, I have been concerned about the relationship between this document and rfc7761.

The result of today's conversation is an agreement that the specification of PIM signaling over BIER needs a lot more PIM details.  Specifically, it is necessary to document the exceptions to rfc7761 related to PIM operation without adjacencies.  A separate PIM draft will be written to recognize that the functionality is not BIER-specific and can be reused by others (there's already related work in lisp, for example).  Stig (pending consultation with Mike) has agreed to fast-track the document through pim.

As a result, I am returning this document to the WG pending an update to depend on the new pim document. After that, both documents can be sent for publication together.
2021-08-17
12 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2021-08-17
12 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
2021-08-05
12 Alvaro Retana === AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-12 ===
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/P1eMkoEWk8981SNeu5J3FeGpwUw/
2021-08-05
12 (System) Changed action holders to IJsbrand Wijnands, Alvaro Retana, Zhaohui Zhang, Jayant Kotalwar, Fengman Xu, Mankamana Mishra, Hooman Bidgoli (IESG state changed)
2021-08-05
12 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-07-25
12 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2021-07-25
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-07-25
12 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-12.txt
2021-07-25
12 (System) New version approved
2021-07-25
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Fengman Xu , Hooman Bidgoli , IJsbrand Wijnands , Jayant Kotalwar , Mankamana Mishra , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-07-25
12 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2021-06-21
11 Alvaro Retana === AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-11 ===
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/XOdjI7SzVm3qImGV0mEzR42f9aE/
2021-06-21
11 (System) Changed action holders to IJsbrand Wijnands, Alvaro Retana, Zhaohui Zhang, Jayant Kotalwar, Fengman Xu, Mankamana Mishra, Hooman Bidgoli (IESG state changed)
2021-06-21
11 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-06-11
11 Alvaro Retana This document now replaces draft-hfa-bier-pim-signaling instead of None
2021-06-09
11 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2021-06-09
11 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-06-09
11 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to Nabeel Cocker <nabeel.cocker@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Nabeel Cocker <nabeel.cocker@gmail.com>
2021-01-19
11 Greg Shepherd
Shepherds Review of:




(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper …
Shepherds Review of:




(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?
[This is a Proposed Standards track RFC.  It is indicated in the title page.  This is the correct type of RFC for the content of this RFC.]


(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:
[Consider large networks deploying traditional PIM multicast service.  Typically, each portion of these large networks have their own  mandates and requirements.  It might be desirable to deploy BIER technology in some part of these  networks to replace traditional PIM services.  In such cases  downstream PIM states need to be signaled over BIER Domain toward the  source.
This draft explains the procedure to signal PIM joins and prunes  through a BIER Domain, as such enable provisioning of traditional PIM  services through a BIER Domain.


Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
[No.  There was good discussion around the draft both during the WG meetings as well as on the mailing list.]


Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
[The document describes procedures to enable PIM signaling over a BIER domain.  As such, it does not introduce a new protocol.  There were no YANG doctors, MIB doctor, Media Type of other expert reviews required.  ]


Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
[Nabeel Cocker]
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
[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 last two draft revisions were thoroughly reviewed.  Comments made to revision 10 have been incorporated into the lasted version by the authors]


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
[No concerns.  The document has had a fair bit of discussion]


(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.
[NO]
(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.


[ IANA considerations:  In the "PIM Join Attribute Types" registry, IANA to assigned a new
  value [TBD] to the BIER Info Vector. ]




(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?


[  Yes  ]
(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?
[  It is well supported and has authors from multiple vendors as well as customers/service providers  ]


(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
[  Non identified  ]


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
[  Not required  ]


(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.
[  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)
[  IANA considerations section does require that in the PIM Join Attribute Types IANA Registry  a new value be assigned for the “BIER info Vector”].
(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, YANG modules, etc.
[  NONE  ]
(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?
[  No YANG module ]
2021-01-19
11 Greg Shepherd Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2021-01-19
11 Greg Shepherd IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2021-01-19
11 Greg Shepherd IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-01-19
11 Greg Shepherd IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-01-04
11 Nabeel Cocker
Shepherds Review of:




(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper …
Shepherds Review of:




(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?
[This is a Proposed Standards track RFC.  It is indicated in the title page.  This is the correct type of RFC for the content of this RFC.]


(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:
[Consider large networks deploying traditional PIM multicast service.  Typically, each portion of these large networks have their own  mandates and requirements.  It might be desirable to deploy BIER technology in some part of these  networks to replace traditional PIM services.  In such cases  downstream PIM states need to be signaled over BIER Domain toward the  source.
This draft explains the procedure to signal PIM joins and prunes  through a BIER Domain, as such enable provisioning of traditional PIM  services through a BIER Domain.


Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
[No.  There was good discussion around the draft both during the WG meetings as well as on the mailing list.]


Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
[The document describes procedures to enable PIM signaling over a BIER domain.  As such, it does not introduce a new protocol.  There were no YANG doctors, MIB doctor, Media Type of other expert reviews required.  ]


Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
[Nabeel Cocker]
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
[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 last two draft revisions were thoroughly reviewed.  Comments made to revision 10 have been incorporated into the lasted version by the authors]


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
[No concerns.  The document has had a fair bit of discussion]


(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.
[NO]
(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.


[ IANA considerations:  In the "PIM Join Attribute Types" registry, IANA to assigned a new
  value [TBD] to the BIER Info Vector. ]




(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?


[  Yes  ]
(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?
[  It is well supported and has authors from multiple vendors as well as customers/service providers  ]


(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
[  Non identified  ]


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
[  Not required  ]


(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.
[  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)
[  IANA considerations section does require that in the PIM Join Attribute Types IANA Registry  a new value be assigned for the “BIER info Vector”].
(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, YANG modules, etc.
[  NONE  ]
(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?
[  No YANG module ]
2020-11-16
11 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-11.txt
2020-11-16
11 (System) New version approved
2020-11-16
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Fengman Xu , Jayant Kotalwar , Mankamana Mishra , IJsbrand Wijnands , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui Zhang
2020-11-16
11 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2020-07-29
10 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-10.txt
2020-07-29
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Hooman Bidgoli)
2020-07-29
10 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2020-07-14
09 Greg Shepherd Notification list changed to Nabeel Cocker <nabeel.cocker@gmail.com>
2020-07-14
09 Greg Shepherd Document shepherd changed to Nabeel Cocker
2020-07-09
09 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-09.txt
2020-07-09
09 (System) New version approved
2020-07-09
09 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mankamana mishra , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui Zhang , bier-chairs@ietf.org, Fengman Xu , Jayant Kotalwar , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mankamana mishra , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui Zhang , bier-chairs@ietf.org, Fengman Xu , Jayant Kotalwar , Andrew Dolganow
2020-07-09
09 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2020-05-04
08 (System) Document has expired
2019-11-01
08 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-08.txt
2019-11-01
08 (System) New version approved
2019-11-01
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu
2019-11-01
08 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2019-10-22
07 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-07.txt
2019-10-22
07 (System) New version approved
2019-10-22
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu
2019-10-22
07 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2019-09-20
06 Tony Przygienda Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2019-09-20
06 Tony Przygienda IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2019-04-23
06 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-06.txt
2019-04-23
06 (System) New version approved
2019-04-23
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu
2019-04-23
06 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2019-01-24
05 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-05.txt
2019-01-24
05 (System) New version approved
2019-01-24
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu
2019-01-24
05 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2018-10-17
04 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-04.txt
2018-10-17
04 (System) New version approved
2018-10-17
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu
2018-10-17
04 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2018-06-21
03 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-03.txt
2018-06-21
03 (System) New version approved
2018-06-21
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , IJsbrand Wijnands , Jayant Kotalwar …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , IJsbrand Wijnands , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu , bier-chairs@ietf.org
2018-06-21
03 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2018-04-18
02 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-02.txt
2018-04-18
02 (System) New version approved
2018-04-18
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , IJsbrand Wijnands , Jayant Kotalwar …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , mankamana mishra , IJsbrand Wijnands , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu
2018-04-18
02 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2018-04-09
01 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-01.txt
2018-04-09
01 (System) New version approved
2018-04-09
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , mankamana mishra , IJsbrand Wijnands , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Andrew Dolganow , mankamana mishra , IJsbrand Wijnands , Jayant Kotalwar , Fengman Xu , bier-chairs@ietf.org
2018-04-09
01 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision
2018-02-23
00 Greg Shepherd Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-02-23
00 Greg Shepherd Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-02-23
00 Hooman Bidgoli New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-00.txt
2018-02-23
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-02-23
00 Hooman Bidgoli Set submitter to "Hooman Bidgoli ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: bier-chairs@ietf.org
2018-02-23
00 Hooman Bidgoli Uploaded new revision