Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-02

[Ballot comment]
I would have thought that the ability to mis-direct traffic would be
enhanced with the addition of wildcards and that that might be worth
a mention in the security considerations.  That is, while there may
be no new threat, nor any new countermeasure needed, the potential
impact of an existing threat would seem to be increased by this.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l3vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In "Multicast Virtual Private Networks" (MVPNs), customer multicast
  flows are carried in "tunnels" through a service provider's network.
  The base specifications for MVPN define BGP multicast VPN
  "auto-discovery routes", and specify how to use an auto-discovery
  route to advertise the fact that an individual customer multicast
  flow is being carried in a particular tunnel.  However, those
  specifications do not provide a way to specify, in a single such
  route, that multiple customer flows are being carried in a single
  tunnel.  Those specifications also do not provide a way to advertise
  that a particular tunnel is to be used by default to carry all
  customer flows, except in the case where that tunnel is joined by all
  the provider edge routers of the MVPN.  This document eliminates
  these restrictions by specifying the use of "wildcard" elements in
  the customer flow identifiers.  With wildcard elements, a single
  auto-discovery route can refer to multiple customer flows, or even to
  all customer flows.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks
WG (l3vpn) to consider the following document:
- 'Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In "Multicast Virtual Private Networks" (MVPNs), customer multicast
  flows are carried in "tunnels" through a service provider's network.
  The base specifications for MVPN define BGP multicast VPN
  "auto-discovery routes", and specify how to use an auto-discovery
  route to advertise the fact that an individual customer multicast
  flow is being carried in a particular tunnel.  However, those
  specifications do not provide a way to specify, in a single such
  route, that multiple customer flows are being carried in a single
  tunnel.  Those specifications also do not provide a way to advertise
  that a particular tunnel is to be used by default to carry all
  customer flows, except in the case where that tunnel is joined by all
  the provider edge routers of the MVPN.  This document eliminates
  these restrictions by specifying the use of "wildcard" elements in
  the customer flow identifiers.  With wildcard elements, a single
  auto-discovery route can refer to multiple customer flows, or even to
  all customer flows.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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-wildcards. 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 December 2011 and no technical concerns were raised during the Last Call.

(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 document was produced by combining two individual drafts authored by a good proportion of the active WG participants.

(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 does not informatively reference any other document and therefore there is just a Normative References section. All normative references are either to published RFCs or to Internet-Drafts in the RFC-Editor's queue. There are no downward references.


(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 contains an IANA Considerations section but contains no actions on IANA.

(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 "Multicast Virtual Private Networks" (MVPNs), customer multicast flows are carried in "tunnels" through a service provider's network. The base specifications for MVPN define BGP multicast VPN "auto-discovery" routes, and specify how to use an auto-discovery route to advertise the fact that an individual customer multicast flow is being carried in a particular tunnel.

However, those specifications do not provide a way to specify, in a single such route, that multiple customer flows are being carried in a single tunnel. Those specifications also do not provide a way to advertise that a particular tunnel is to be used by default to carry all customer flows, except in the case where that tunnel is joined by all the provider edge routers of the MVPN.

This document eliminates these restrictions by specifying the use of "wildcard" elements in the customer flow identifiers. With wildcard elements, a single auto-discovery route can refer to multiple customer flows, or even to all customer 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 December 2011.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

I am not aware of any existing implementations but I have not actively tried to discover if any implementation exist.

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.