Skip to main content

PIM Assert Message Packing
draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
Proposed Standard

(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:
In PIM-SM shared LAN networks, there is typically more than one
  upstream router. When duplicate data packets appear on the LAN from
  different routers, assert packets are sent from these routers to
  elect a single forwarder. The PIM assert packets are sent
  periodically to keep the assert state. The PIM assert packet carries
  information about a single multicast source and group, along with
  the metric-preference and metric of the route towards the source or
  RP. This document defines a standard to send and receive information
  for multiple multicast sources and groups in a single PIM assert
  message. This can be particularly helpful when there is  traffic
  for a large number of multicast groups.

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?
Nothing to note. No controversy.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG 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?
Not aware of implementations, but I believe a few vendors are considering implementing it. There are known deployment issues that can be solved by this document.  As a shepherd I found several issues with the document that are all resolved in the latest version.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd Stig Venaas, AD Alvaro Retana

(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.
The latest version is ready. Issues were found during shepherds review that are all resolved in the latest version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No

(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

(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 concerns.

(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?
Yes, they all confirmed that they are not aware of any undisclosed IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
An IPR has been filed. No concerns have been raised, the WG still supports the document.

(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?
A handful of people apart from the authors support it, none are against. The document is straightforward, I believe the rest of the WG understands it, but are being silent.

(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

(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.
No nits found, except RFC 8736 should be clearly referenced in the text, it it added as a normative reference.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review needed.

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

(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?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No

(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.
No

(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 8126).
Registries have been clearly identified.

(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.
None

(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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
N/A
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
Proposed Standard

(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:
In PIM-SM shared LAN networks, there is typically more than one
  upstream router. When duplicate data packets appear on the LAN from
  different routers, assert packets are sent from these routers to
  elect a single forwarder. The PIM assert packets are sent
  periodically to keep the assert state. The PIM assert packet carries
  information about a single multicast source and group, along with
  the metric-preference and metric of the route towards the source or
  RP. This document defines a standard to send and receive information
  for multiple multicast sources and groups in a single PIM assert
  message. This can be particularly helpful when there is  traffic
  for a large number of multicast groups.

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?
Nothing to note. No controversy.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG 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?
Not aware of implementations, but I believe a few vendors are considering implementing it. There are known deployment issues that can be solved by this document.  As a shepherd I found several issues with the document that are all resolved in the latest version.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd Stig Venaas, AD Alvaro Retana

(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.
The latest version is ready. Issues were found during shepherds review that are all resolved in the latest version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No

(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

(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 concerns.

(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?
Yes, they all confirmed that they are not aware of any undisclosed IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
An IPR has been filed. No concerns have been raised, the WG still supports the document.

(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?
A handful of people apart from the authors support it, none are against. The document is straightforward, I believe the rest of the WG understands it, but are being silent.

(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

(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.
No nits found, except RFC 8736 should be clearly referenced in the text, it it added as a normative reference.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review needed.

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

(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?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No

(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.
No

(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 8126).
Registries have been clearly identified.

(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.
None

(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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
N/A
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas Notification list changed to stig@venaas.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas Document shepherd changed to Stig Venaas
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-12-10
05 Stig Venaas Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-11-22
05 Yisong Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-05.txt
2021-11-22
05 (System) New version approved
2021-11-22
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mike McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, Zheng Zhang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mike McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, Zheng Zhang <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
2021-11-22
05 Yisong Liu Uploaded new revision
2021-11-08
04 Yisong Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-04.txt
2021-11-08
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yisong Liu)
2021-11-08
04 Yisong Liu Uploaded new revision
2021-10-20
03 Yisong Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-03.txt
2021-10-20
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yisong Liu)
2021-10-20
03 Yisong Liu Uploaded new revision
2021-06-21
02 Yisong Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-02.txt
2021-06-21
02 (System) New version approved
2021-06-21
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mike McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, Zheng Zhang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mike McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, Zheng Zhang <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
2021-06-21
02 Yisong Liu Uploaded new revision
2021-03-07
01 Stig Venaas Added to session: IETF-110: pim  Tue-1700
2021-02-20
01 Yisong Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-01.txt
2021-02-20
01 (System) New version approved
2021-02-20
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mike McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, pim-chairs@ietf.org
2021-02-20
01 Yisong Liu Uploaded new revision
2020-09-18
00 (System) Document has expired
2020-04-27
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing
2020-03-17
00 Mike McBride This document now replaces draft-liu-pim-assert-packing instead of None
2020-03-17
00 Yisong Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-00.txt
2020-03-17
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-03-17
00 Yisong Liu Set submitter to "Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>", replaces to draft-liu-pim-assert-packing and sent approval email to group chairs: pim-chairs@ietf.org
2020-03-17
00 Yisong Liu Uploaded new revision