Carrying Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) in Any-Source Multicast (ASM) Mode Trees over Multipoint LDP (mLDP)
draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-03

[Ballot comment]
In the introduction, I am unable to parse this sentence:

  In a deployment scenario where the service provider has provisioned
  the network in such a way that the Rendezvous Point (RP) for a
  particular ASM group G is always between the receivers and the
  sources.

I think maybe you want to say:

  Consider a deployment scenario where the service provider has provisioned
  the network in such a way that the Rendezvous Point (RP) for a
  particular ASM group G is always between the receivers and the
  sources.

[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Carlos in his OPS-DIR review.

Introduction:

CMP: Overall, the introduction is a bit hard to parse. It contains a number of assumptions and expectations of the reader and notes. I suggest these paragraphs be taken out into a separate subsection of the Intro.

  The first mechanism, described in Section 3, is optional for
  implementations, but the second mechanism, described in Section 4, is
  mandatory for all implementations claiming conformance to this
  specification.

CMP: This being a STD Track document, is “mandatory” the same as “REQUIRED” (see Section 1.1)? Is “optional” the same as “OPTIONAL”?

CMP: A nit here as well, the pointers to the Sections have a wrong offset (should be S2 and S3).


Nits:

CMP: Sometimes the text talks about “Source Active Auto-Discovery” and others about “BGP Source Active Auto-Discovery”. See example below, I think it should normalize on one of them:
2.1 Originating Source Active Auto-Discovery Routes (Mechanism 1) ..  5
2.2 Receiving BGP Source Active Auto-Discovery Route by LSR  .......  6

[Ballot comment]
Just a small question here:

  The reader of this document is expected to be familiar with PIM-SM
  [RFC4601] and mLDP [RFC6388].

Then why is 4601 listed as an informative reference (while 6388 is, correctly, normative)?

[Ballot comment]
The SecDir review by Tero Kivinen resulted in a suggested additional text from the editor...

  From the security considerations point of view use of Shared Tree
  TLVs is no different than use of Source TLVs [rfc6826].

This will need to be added to the document before it advances.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-02.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments:

IANA understands that this document requires a single action upon approval.

In the LDP MP Opaque Value Element basic type registry under the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters heading at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

two new registrations are to be made:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: Transit IPv4 Shared Tree TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: Transit IPv6 Shared Tree TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors request that the assigned values be consecutive.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs'
  as 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 2014-11-03. 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

  When IP multicast trees created by PIM-SM in Any Source Multicast
  (ASM) mode need to pass through an MPLS domain, it may be desirable
  to map such trees to Point-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths. This
  document describes how to accomplish this in the case where such
  Point-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths are established using Label
  Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
  Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths Multipoint LDP (mLDP).

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2189/

  The MPLS Working Group requests that

        Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs

                draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-01.txt

  is published as an RFC on the Standards Track

(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?

  We request that this document is publshed as a Proposed Standard on
  the Standards Track. The document header says "Standard Track".
  This is the proper type of RFC it specify extensions to mLDP, protocol
  elements and procedures.

(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 issues when an IP multicast trees created by PIM-SM in ASM
  mode need to pass through an MPLS domain. It may be desirable
  to map the transportation of such trees to P2P LSPs. This document
  describes how to accomplish this in the case where the P2MP LSPs
  are established using mLDP.

Working Group Summary

  Originally there was an overlap between this document and
  draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding. This was resolved to the
  satisfaction of the working group, document shepherd, wg chairs and the
  authors of both document, before the documents were adopted as working
  group document.

Document Quality

  We are currently not aware of any implementations of this specification. We have
  sent out an implementation poll and will update the Shepherd Write-Up as soon
  as we have further information.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD.
  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.

(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.

  This document has been reviewed by the Document Shepherd fully twice.
  prior to starting the working group adoption poll and prior to the working
  group last call.

  The document has also been reviewed partly, by both the Document Shepherd
  and working group chairs when sorting out the overlap.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No such conserns.

(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.

  No such reviews necessary.

(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 issues.

(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 the authors have stated on the on the working group mailing list
  that they are not aware of any other IPRs than those already disclosed.

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

  There are one IPR disclosure against this document, this was brought to
  the attention to the working group, but has not caused any reaction. The
  Shepherd interpret this as that the conditions quoted in the disclosure is
  acceptable.

(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 working consensus is good, there is an agreement that using MPLS
  P2MP LSPs to transport multicast services, this document solves part
  of that problem.

(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 such threats.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  There is one nit. The nits tool is very strict with e.g. the format of the
  dates in the header.
  The correct format is:
  September 8, 2014 ;while the document says
  September 8 2014

  We have told the authors to sit on this nit and update if we have
  comments that require a new ID during the AD evaluation, IETF Last call
  or IESG review.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

(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 the normative references are to existing RFC.

(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 refrences.

(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.

  There will be no changes to the status of any existing RFCs when this
  document is published.

(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 document shepherd has reviewed the IANA section and find it
  clear and concise.

(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.

  No such registries.

(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.

  No such reviews needed.