IPv6 Multicast VPN (MVPN) Support Using PIM Control Plane and Selective Provider Multicast Service Interface (S-PMSI) Join Messages
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02

[Ballot discuss]
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 6:
>    The specification for Multicast Virtual Private Networks (MVPN)
>    contains an option that allows the use of PIM as the control protocol
>    between provider edge routers.  It also contains an option that
>    allows UDP-based messages (known as "S-PMSI Join" messages) to be
>    used to bind particular customer multicast flows to particular
>    tunnels through a service provider's network.  This document extends
>    the MVPN specification so that these options can be used when the
>    customer multicast flows are IPv6 flows.

  DISCUSS: I have one quick clarification question regarding the
  applicability of this extension: Does this document update MVPN, i.e.,
  is the intent here to specify a mandatory-to-implement extension to
  MVPN, or is this an optional extension? If the latter, how is the use
  negotiated?

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single
IANA action that needs to be completed.

In the Selective P-Multicast Service Interface (S-PMSI) Parameters
registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/s-pmsi-parameters/s-pmsi-parameters.xhtml

a single new value is to be registered.

Value Description Reference
----- ----------------------------------- --------------------
4 GRE S-PMSI for IPv6 traffic (unaggregated) {RFC-to-be]

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, this is the only
IANA needs to complete.

Intended Status: Proposed Standard

(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?

Ben Niven-Jenkins is the Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins. I have personally reviewed the -01 version of the document and believe that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication as a Standards Track RFC.

(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 -00 version of the document passed the L3VPN WG Last Call in August 2010, although we received no technical comments on the document during the Last Call a -01 version was produced which addressed some editorial nits. No outstanding comments exist.

(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.

No concerns and no IPR disclosures have been filed.

(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?

There were no objections during the WG Last Call on the document, and the utility of this specification is straight-forward, as well as both obvious and intuitive.

(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, not to my knowledge.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?

The idnits tool reports no issues. There are no MIB or other elements in the document that would warrant review. As such, I have no concerns here.

(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 only contains normative references but the document is short, the normative references are appropriate and there is no need in my opinion to include an informative references section as there is no need to make informative references to other documents.

(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 [RFC5226]. 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 defines a new "S-PMSI Join Message Type" in the "S-PMSI Join Message Type Field" Registry.

The document makes an assignment in the registry for "GRE S-PMSI for IPv6 traffic (unaggregated)" with a value of 4.

(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.

The specification for Multicast Virtual Private Networks (MVPN) contains an option that allows the use of PIM as the control protocol between provider edge routers. It also contains an option that allows UDP-based "S-PMSI Join" messages to be used to bind particular customer multicast flows to particular tunnels through a service provider's network. This document extends the MVPN specification so that these options can be used when the customer multicast flows are IPv6 flows.

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. There were no technical comments on the document during the WG Last Call, which was completed in August 2010.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

I do not know.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
to implement the specification?

I do not know.

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.

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?

No such review was conducted as it was not considered necessary.