Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling

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 ]
Back