Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
2011-09-14
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD has been changed to Stewart Bryant from Ross Callon |
2011-05-27
|
10 | Ben Niven-Jenkins | Recording current status. |
2011-05-27
|
10 | Ben Niven-Jenkins | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2010-03-12
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement to be sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-03-04
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-03-04
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-03-04
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-03-01
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-02-25
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-02-25
|
10 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent by Ross Callon |
2010-02-25
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-02-25
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2010-02-25
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-02-25
|
10 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2010-02-25
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
2010-02-10
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10 | |
2010-01-28
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-01-28
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.txt |
2010-01-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-01-07
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-01-07
|
10 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2010-01-06
|
10 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] It appears the document went through a massive reorganization between drafts -06 and -07, and some of the references never caught up with … [Ballot comment] It appears the document went through a massive reorganization between drafts -06 and -07, and some of the references never caught up with the reorg. I noted two specific instances (see below) but a more thorough review by one of the editors might be in order... Section 13., paragraph 5 reference to Section 7.2.1 (which does not exist) should probably be 7.4.2 section 14, paragraph 1 reference to Section 7.2.1.1 (which does not exist) should probably be 7.4.2.1 |
2010-01-06
|
10 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-01-05
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] The OPS-DIR review performed by Pekka Savola raised the following issue: > IPv6 support. The spec apparently aims to support both IPv4 and … [Ballot discuss] The OPS-DIR review performed by Pekka Savola raised the following issue: > IPv6 support. The spec apparently aims to support both IPv4 and IPv6 because it refers to both in a couple of places. Yet, there is at least one explicit place in the spec (S 7.4.2.2) that's not compatible. I suspect many of the BGP attributes used, possibly also the MCAST-VPN BGP SAFI and others are not IPv6 compatible. At the minimum, the status (intent) of the spec should be clarified. Even better would be to improve and include the support here. Eric Rosen's answer to this was: > In general, the procedures specified in the document will enable an IPv4 SP backbone to support customer use of IPv6 multicast. You are correct that section 7.4.2.2 is incomplete in this respect. However, this does not seem to have been fixed or documented in the revised version. As the issue is related to incomplete IPv6 support, I believe that it needs to be documented clearly including the reasons - even if it would probably not need to block the document taking into account and MVPN and IPv6 may not meet too soon in real life deployments. |
2010-01-05
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-12-21
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-12-17
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Telechat date was changed to 2010-01-07 from 2009-12-17 by Amy Vezza |
2009-12-17
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-12-17
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-12-17
|
10 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-12-16
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-12-16
|
10 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-12-14
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-12-11
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2009-12-03
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2009-12-03
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2009-11-30
|
10 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-17 by Ross Callon |
2009-11-30
|
10 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2009-11-30
|
10 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
2009-11-30
|
10 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
2009-11-30
|
10 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-11-30
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2009-11-30
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-09.txt |
2009-09-29
|
10 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon |
2009-09-18
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2009-09-08
|
10 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-09-08
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA questions/comments: - What are the registration procedures for the S-PMSI Join Message Type registry? Is value 0 reserved? What's the upper limit? Should it … IANA questions/comments: - What are the registration procedures for the S-PMSI Join Message Type registry? Is value 0 reserved? What's the upper limit? Should it be placed in an existing page, like http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml? - The IANA Considerations section refers to a section 7.2.1.1, but this section doesn't exist. ACTION 1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following change in the port number registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers OLD: mdtp 3232/tcp MDT port mdtp 3232/udp MDT port IJsbrand Wijnands NEW: mdtp 3232/tcp MDT port mdtp 3232/udp MDT port [RFC-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08] ACTION 2: Upon approval of this document, IANA will create the following registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Registry Name: S-PMSI Join Message Type Registration Procedures: ?? Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: Value | Description | Reference ------+----------------+---------- 1 | PIM IPv4 S-PMSI (unaggregated)| [RFC-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08] ACTION 3: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "PIM Join Attribute Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml Value | Name | Reference ------+----------------+---------- 1 | MVPN Join Attribute | [RFC-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08] |
2009-08-27
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2009-08-27
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2009-08-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-08-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-08-25
|
10 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon |
2009-08-25
|
10 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
2009-08-25
|
10 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-08-25
|
10 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-08-25
|
10 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-08-21
|
10 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
2009-07-29
|
10 | Ross Callon | Proto writeup by Danny McPherson: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs Proto writeup by Danny McPherson: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? … Proto writeup by Danny McPherson: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs Proto writeup by Danny McPherson: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The Document Shepherd is myself (Danny McPherson). I believe that the 08 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication on the Internet Standards Track. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document passed the L3VPN WG Last Call, many comments were received and these were addressed by the document authors. I believe all substantial comments have been addressed. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. This document is put forth with draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp. Interoperability and default deployment modes are a concern because of the large number of "functions/features" provided in each of these specifications. Many of these concerns are meant to be addressed by draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, which will be submitted very shortly as well. The WG agreed with this path as seemingly the only viable path to progressing this work. (1.e) 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? A great deal of debate and discussion has occurred around this draft and the companion drafts mentioned above. After much deliberation and consideration with the WG and relevant stake holders and leadership (e.g., chairs, ADs, authors) this seems to be most feasible path forward. Given the length of these documents I suspect a great deal of the WG couldn't find their way through the entire set of text, but for those that are "interested parties", more than enough discussion and review has taken place. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Beyond some expired references (not surprisingly) that need to be updated, it looks fine. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document split its references, beyond some expired references (not surprisingly) that need to be updated, it looks fine. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The document contains IANA consideration section. To the best of my knowledge the IANA considerations are consistent with the rest of the document. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No section of this document is written in a formal language. (1.k) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service Provider. These protocols and procedures are specified in this document. 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? This document is a product of L3VPN WG. It's progress is reliant upon the accompanying progress of draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp and draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, as outlined above. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Yes, although my knowledge of exactly which aspects of this specification have been implemented is limited. Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? While I do believe this to be the case, I cannot speak authoritatively to this question. 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? Not to the best of my knowledge, and the contributors section, as well as the list of authors beyond the editors seems to appropriately address this. If there was a MIB 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? Nope, none of the above. |
2009-07-29
|
10 | Ross Callon | Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested |
2009-03-24
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Yakov Rekhter's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08 belonging to Cisco Systems | |
2009-03-05
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08.txt |
2009-02-09
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Juniper's Statement of IPR related to draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-07 | |
2009-01-11
|
10 | (System) | Document has expired |
2008-07-11
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-07.txt |
2008-01-14
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-06.txt |
2007-07-08
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-05.txt |
2007-05-02
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-04.txt |
2006-10-19
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt |
2006-06-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-02.txt |
2005-12-28
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-01.txt |
2005-06-01
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00.txt |