Shepherd writeup

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.


Document Shepherd: Suneesh Babu 
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.

Shepherd reviewed draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04 and the comments are captured @

The authors updates can be found @

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 @

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

(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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

     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.