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.