Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer
draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-01-11
|
15 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-15.txt |
2024-01-11
|
15 | Greg Mirsky | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Greg Mirsky) |
2024-01-11
|
15 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-11
|
14 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-07-10
|
14 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-14.txt |
2023-07-10
|
14 | Greg Mirsky | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Greg Mirsky) |
2023-07-10
|
14 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-07
|
13 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-01-03
|
13 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-13.txt |
2023-01-03
|
13 | Greg Mirsky | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Greg Mirsky) |
2023-01-03
|
13 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-02
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-03-31
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Shepherding AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2022-03-31
|
12 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-12.txt |
2022-03-31
|
12 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Greg Mirsky) |
2022-03-31
|
12 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-04
|
11 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-11.txt |
2021-10-04
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-04
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giuseppe Fioccola , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen , bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-10-04
|
11 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-01
|
10 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-03-30
|
10 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-10.txt |
2021-03-30
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-30
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giuseppe Fioccola , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen |
2021-03-30
|
10 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-26
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Telecom Italia SpA's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam | |
2020-12-02
|
09 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09.txt |
2020-12-02
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-12-02
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giuseppe Fioccola , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen |
2020-12-02
|
09 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-26
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-05-25
|
08 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-08.txt |
2020-05-25
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-25
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Greg Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , Giuseppe Fioccola |
2020-05-25
|
08 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-03
|
07 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-07.txt |
2020-01-03
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-03
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Giuseppe Fioccola , Lianshu Zheng |
2020-01-03
|
07 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-02
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-01-02
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2019-09-20
|
06 | Tony Przygienda | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Adopted by a WG |
2019-09-20
|
06 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to Adopted by a WG from WG Document |
2019-07-02
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | See the -05 review thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/vXfLs0N0sK0jBPoRE4JOGHi2QUE |
2019-07-02
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
2019-07-02
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2019-07-02
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Based on my review of -05 [1], I am returning this document to the WG for additional work. Specifically, I ask the WG to consider … Based on my review of -05 [1], I am returning this document to the WG for additional work. Specifically, I ask the WG to consider the following points (more details in the review): - Status. This documents depends Normatively on rfc8321, which is an Experimental RFC. In general, downward references are possible, but I don't think this is one of those cases. The Shepherd writeup for rfc8321 [2] states that "the measurement utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a variety of scales in a plurality of network conditions." As far as I can tell, that hasn't been demonstrated, nor specific information about the completion of the experiment was included in the RFC text. I didn't see the topic of the document status discussed in the WG -- nor am I aware of discussions about the maturity of rfc8321 in the ippm WG. The result is then that this document should be either Informational or Experimental. - Applicability. The applicability to p2p/p2mp traffic is not explicitly discussed in rfc8321. The specific applicability of PNPM to BIER should be clearly considered. - Relationship to other WG items. The WG has been working on draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements, but (in the -05 version) there was no mention of that document or how the requirements are addressed. I would like the WG to consider the relationship of this document with the requirements document and whether the publication of the requirements is necessary given that solutions already address them. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/vXfLs0N0sK0jBPoRE4JOGHi2QUE [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/shepherdwriteup/ |
2019-07-02
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-07-01
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-07-01
|
06 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-06.txt |
2019-07-01
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-01
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , Giuseppe Fioccola , bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-07-01
|
06 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-01
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | The authors will post an update before sending the document back to the WG. |
2019-07-01
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-06-26
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05 == https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/vXfLs0N0sK0jBPoRE4JOGHi2QUE |
2019-06-26
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation |
2019-06-25
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Suneesh Babu <suneeshbk@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Suneesh Babu <suneeshbk@gmail.com> |
2019-06-25
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-05-31
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | 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 … 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? The OAM procedures need to be standardised for interoperability, so the specification is on Standards Track as 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 This document specifies the Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer(RFC-8279). This document defines how marking method can be used on BIER layer to measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS network. The two bit OAM field specified in BIER header as per RFC-8296 is used for the marking performance measurement. The method described is a hybrid model and can be used either in single mark or double mark enabled mode. Working Group Summary The document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality The document is a stable document and supported for publication in the working group. Personnel Document Shepherd: Suneesh Babu suneeshbk@gmail.com Area Director: Alvaro Retana aretana.ietf@gmail.com (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. Shepherd reviewed draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04 and the comments are captured @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/4AAeD-UieA6g2VKtgFDWD8EJ_h0 The authors updates can be found @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/0rn7_VSjJQPRAOxSSfnGp-kFWBE As per the review, current version draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05 is captured on Dec 11, 2018 and it addresses all the comments made on the mailing list and is ready for IESG publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns Following events are captured from first draft to latest a). Draft 00 Version on Sept 21, 2015 b). Draft 01 Version on Jan 24, 2017 c). Draft discussed in IEFT Prague d). Draft 02 Version on July 18, 2017 e). Draft 03 Version on Oct 04, 2017 f). Alia Atlas commented/referenced the draft as part of AD review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08 g). Draft 04 Version on June 20, 2018 h). Tony updated the BIER group of the Stability of the draft and Last call info on Nov 29, 2017 i). Fioccola Giuseppe supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 1, 2017 j). Jeff Tantsura supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 4, 2017 k). Greg Shepherd reminded the BIER group of WGLC of the draft on Feb 22, 2018 l). Shepherd Review on Nov 26, 2018 m). Draft 05 Version on Dec 11, 2018 (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. Not required (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. No Such 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. All authors have confirmed IPR disclosures and is captured @ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (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 document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. (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 appeals. (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. No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references correctly documented. (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? All normative references are existing RFCs. (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 downward references that I found. (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 other RFCs are being updated or obsoleted by this RFC. (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 OAM field requirement for the BIER header is captured in IANA considerations section. (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. As per Shepherds understanding, no expert level review is required. (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. nit tool returns with no errors. |
2019-05-31
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2019-05-31
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-05-31
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-05-31
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-05-31
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2019-05-31
|
05 | Tony Przygienda | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-05-29
|
05 | Suneesh Babu | 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 … 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? The OAM procedures need to be standardised for interoperability, so the specification is on Standards Track as 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 This document specifies the Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer(RFC-8279). This document defines how marking method can be used on BIER layer to measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS network. The two bit OAM field specified in BIER header as per RFC-8296 is used for the marking performance measurement. The method described is a hybrid model and can be used either in single mark or double mark enabled mode. Working Group Summary The document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality The document is a stable document and supported for publication in the working group. Personnel Document Shepherd: Suneesh Babu suneeshbk@gmail.com Area Director: Alvaro Retana aretana.ietf@gmail.com (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. Shepherd reviewed draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04 and the comments are captured @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/4AAeD-UieA6g2VKtgFDWD8EJ_h0 The authors updates can be found @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/0rn7_VSjJQPRAOxSSfnGp-kFWBE As per the review, current version draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05 is captured on Dec 11, 2018 and it addresses all the comments made on the mailing list and is ready for IESG publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns Following events are captured from first draft to latest a). Draft 00 Version on Sept 21, 2015 b). Draft 01 Version on Jan 24, 2017 c). Draft discussed in IEFT Prague d). Draft 02 Version on July 18, 2017 e). Draft 03 Version on Oct 04, 2017 f). Alia Atlas commented/referenced the draft as part of AD review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08 g). Draft 04 Version on June 20, 2018 h). Tony updated the BIER group of the Stability of the draft and Last call info on Nov 29, 2017 i). Fioccola Giuseppe supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 1, 2017 j). Jeff Tantsura supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 4, 2017 k). Greg Shepherd reminded the BIER group of WGLC of the draft on Feb 22, 2018 l). Shepherd Review on Nov 26, 2018 m). Draft 05 Version on Dec 11, 2018 (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. Not required (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. No Such 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. All authors have confirmed IPR disclosures and is captured @ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (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 document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. (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 appeals. (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. No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references correctly documented. (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? All normative references are existing RFCs. (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 downward references that I found. (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 other RFCs are being updated or obsoleted by this RFC. (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 OAM field requirement for the BIER header is captured in IANA considerations section. (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. As per Shepherds understanding, no expert level review is required. (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. nit tool returns with no errors. |
2019-05-29
|
05 | Suneesh Babu | 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 … 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? The OAM procedures need to be standardised for interoperability, so the specification is on Standards Track as 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 This document specifies the Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer(RFC-8279). This document defines how marking method can be used on BIER layer to measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS network. The two bit OAM field specified in BIER header as per RFC-8296 is used for the marking performance measurement. The method described is a hybrid model and can be used either in single mark or double mark enabled mode. Working Group Summary The document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality The document is a stable document and supported for adoption in the working group. Personnel Document Shepherd: Suneesh Babu suneeshbk@gmail.com Area Director: Alvaro Retana aretana.ietf@gmail.com (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. Shepherd reviewed draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04 and the comments are captured @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/4AAeD-UieA6g2VKtgFDWD8EJ_h0 The authors updates can be found @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/0rn7_VSjJQPRAOxSSfnGp-kFWBE As per the review, current version draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05 is captured on Dec 11, 2018 and it addresses all the comments made on the mailing list and is ready for IESG publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns Following events are captured from first draft to latest a). Draft 00 Version on Sept 21, 2015 b). Draft 01 Version on Jan 24, 2017 c). Draft discussed in IEFT Prague d). Draft 02 Version on July 18, 2017 e). Draft 03 Version on Oct 04, 2017 f). Alia Atlas commented/referenced the draft as part of AD review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08 g). Draft 04 Version on June 20, 2018 h). Tony updated the BIER group of the Stability of the draft and Last call info on Nov 29, 2017 i). Fioccola Giuseppe supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 1, 2017 j). Jeff Tantsura supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 4, 2017 k). Greg Shepherd reminded the BIER group of WGLC of the draft on Feb 22, 2018 l). Shepherd Review on Nov 26, 2018 m). Draft 05 Version on Dec 11, 2018 (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. Not required (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. No Such 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. All authors have confirmed IPR disclosures and is captured @ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (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 document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. (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 appeals. (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. No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references correctly documented. (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? All normative references are existing RFCs. (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 downward references that I found. (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 other RFCs are being updated or obsoleted by this RFC. (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 OAM field requirement for the BIER header is captured in IANA considerations section. (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. As per Shepherds understanding, no expert level review is required. (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. nit tool returns with no errors. |
2019-05-28
|
05 | Suneesh Babu | 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 … 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-pmmm-oam is following Standards Track to have interoperability in implementations and 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 This document specifies the Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer(RFC-8279). This document defines how marking method can be used on BIER layer to measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS network. The two bit OAM field specified in BIER header as per RFC-8296 is used for the marking performance measurement. The method described is a hybrid model and can be used either in single mark or double mark enabled mode. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents Document Quality The document is a stable document and supported for adoption in the working group. Personnel Document Shepherd: Suneesh Babu suneeshbk@gmail.com Area Director: Alvaro Retana aretana.ietf@gmail.com (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. Shepherd reviewed draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04 and the comments are captured @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/4AAeD-UieA6g2VKtgFDWD8EJ_h0 The authors updates can be found @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/0rn7_VSjJQPRAOxSSfnGp-kFWBE As per the review, current version draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05 is captured on Dec 11, 2018 and it addresses all the comments made on the mailing list and is ready for IESG publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns Following events are captured from first draft to latest a). Draft 00 Version on Sept 21, 2015 b). Draft 01 Version on Jan 24, 2017 c). Draft discussed in IEFT Prague d). Draft 02 Version on July 18, 2017 e). Draft 03 Version on Oct 04, 2017 f). Alia Atlas commented/referenced the draft as part of AD review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08 g). Draft 04 Version on June 20, 2018 h). Tony updated the BIER group of the Stability of the draft and Last call info on Nov 29, 2017 i). Fioccola Giuseppe supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 1, 2017 j). Jeff Tantsura supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 4, 2017 k). Greg Shepherd reminded the BIER group of WGLC of the draft on Feb 22, 2018 l). Shepherd Review on Nov 26, 2018 m). Draft 05 Version on Dec 11, 2018 (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. Not required (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. No Such 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. All authors have confirmed IPR disclosures and is captured @ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (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 as a whole understands and agrees. (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 appeals. (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. No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references correctly documented. (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? All normative references are existing RFCs. (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 downward references that I found. (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 other RFCs are being updated or obsoleted by this RFC. (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 OAM field requirement for the BIER header is captured in IANA considerations section. (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. As per Shepherds understanding, no expert level review is required. (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. nit tool returns with no errors. |
2019-05-27
|
05 | Suneesh Babu | 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 … 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? According to the current charter https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bier/, the BIER-WG is now chartered to produce Standards Track RFCs. draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam is following Standards Track and 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 This document specifies the Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer(RFC-8279). This document defines how marking method can be used on BIER layer to measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS network. The two bit OAM field specified in BIER header as per RFC-8296 is used for the marking performance measurement. The method described is a hybrid model and can be used either in single mark or double mark enabled mode. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents Document Quality The document is a stable document and supported for adoption in the working group. Personnel Document Shepherd: Suneesh Babu suneeshbk@gmail.com Area Director: Alvaro Retana aretana.ietf@gmail.com (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. Shepherd reviewed draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04 and the comments are captured @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/4AAeD-UieA6g2VKtgFDWD8EJ_h0 The authors updates can be found @ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/0rn7_VSjJQPRAOxSSfnGp-kFWBE As per the review, current version draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05 is captured on Dec 11, 2018 and it addresses all the comments made on the mailing list and is ready for IESG publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns Following events are captured from first draft to latest a). Draft 00 Version on Sept 21, 2015 b). Draft 01 Version on Jan 24, 2017 c). Draft discussed in IEFT Prague d). Draft 02 Version on July 18, 2017 e). Draft 03 Version on Oct 04, 2017 f). Alia Atlas commented/referenced the draft as part of AD review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08 g). Draft 04 Version on June 20, 2018 h). Tony updated the BIER group of the Stability of the draft and Last call info on Nov 29, 2017 i). Fioccola Giuseppe supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 1, 2017 j). Jeff Tantsura supported the Last Call of the draft on Dec 4, 2017 k). Greg Shepherd reminded the BIER group of WGLC of the draft on Feb 22, 2018 l). Shepherd Review on Nov 26, 2018 m). Draft 05 Version on Dec 11, 2018 (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. Not required (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. No Such 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. All authors have confirmed IPR disclosures and is captured @ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2708/ (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 as a whole understands and agrees. (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 appeals. (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 draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam state file. - The rfc1997 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc1997 state file. - The rfc2016 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc2016 state file. - The rfc2017 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc2017 state file. - The rfc2018 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc2018 state file. - The rfc2119 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc2119 state file. - The rfc7799 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc7799 state file. - The rfc8174 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc8174 state file. - The rfc8279 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc8279 state file. - The rfc8296 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc8296 state file. - The rfc8321 state file is not from today. Attempting to download a newer one... - Success fetching rfc8321 state file. Showing Errors (**), Flaws (~~), Warnings (==), and Comments (--). Errors MUST be fixed before draft submission. Flaws SHOULD be fixed before draft submission. 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. Running in submission checking mode -- *not* checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references correctly documented. (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? All normative references are existing RFCs. (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 downward references that I found. (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 other RFCs are being updated or obsoleted by this RFC. (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 OAM field requirement for the BIER header is captured in IANA considerations section. (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. As per Shepherds understanding, no expert level review is required. (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. nit tool returns with no errors. |
2018-12-11
|
05 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-05.txt |
2018-12-11
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-11
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , Giuseppe Fioccola |
2018-12-11
|
05 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-24
|
04 | Tony Przygienda | Notification list changed to Suneesh Babu <suneeshbk@gmail.com> |
2018-10-24
|
04 | Tony Przygienda | Document shepherd changed to Suneesh Babu |
2018-06-19
|
04 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04.txt |
2018-06-19
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-19
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , Giuseppe Fioccola |
2018-06-19
|
04 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-19
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-02-21
|
03 | Greg Shepherd | Looking for Doc Shepherd |
2018-02-21
|
03 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2018-02-21
|
03 | Greg Shepherd | Looking for Doc Shepherd |
2018-02-21
|
03 | Greg Shepherd | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2018-02-21
|
03 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
2018-02-21
|
03 | Greg Shepherd | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-10-03
|
03 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-03.txt |
2017-10-03
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-03
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , Giuseppe Fioccola |
2017-10-03
|
03 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-18
|
02 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-02.txt |
2017-07-18
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-18
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , Giuseppe Fioccola |
2017-07-18
|
02 | Greg Mirsky | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-24
|
01 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-01.txt |
2017-01-24
|
01 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2017-01-19
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-07-20
|
00 | Greg Shepherd | Accepted as a WG document - resubmitted with WG ID |
2016-07-20
|
00 | Greg Shepherd | This document now replaces draft-mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam instead of None |
2016-07-18
|
00 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-00.txt |