(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. Standards Track is indicated on the draft and is appropriate particularly with the new PIM Hello Option
Types being assigned to DRLB.
(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:
On a multi-access network, one of the PIM routers is elected as a
Designated Router (DR). On the last hop network, the PIM DR is
responsible for tracking local multicast listeners and forwarding
traffic to these listeners if the group is operating in PIM-SM. In
this document, we propose a modification to the PIM-SM protocol that
allows more than one of these last hop routers to be selected so that
the forwarding load can be distributed among these routers.
Working Group Summary
There was very thorough review by the WG particularly by one of the WG members. There were many comments
and all were addressed to this individuals (and the lists) satisfaction. Alia, AD at the time, had a long list of issues.
The authors took a few years to address them... Last year, Mankamana and Stig decided it was time to have this
published and revised the draft based on her comments. There has since been good wg review and consensus to
finally move it forward. We may not be fast but at least we are slow.
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, 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?
Cisco has an implementation of this protocol. No other vendors have indicated plan to implement the specification
but they support publication of this draft. The only reviewers were from the PIM WG and were very thorough.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Mike McBride is the document shepherd and Alvaro Retana is the responsible Area Director.
(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
This version is ready for publication and has been reviewed by the shepherd and the co-chair. For years.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. Very thorough reviews were performed with extensive comments.
(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
(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
(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, there is IPR and it has been declared with #1713.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Yes, IPR has been declared and the WG has been notified.
(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 document as a whole has been understood but, to be fair, there were only a few vocal individuals who helped thoroughly review the document. Non cisco individuals.
(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.)
(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
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No other formal review other then the PIM WG and AD.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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).
Referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified and the Hello options have been assigned.
(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.
Two new PIM Hello Option Types have been assigned to the DR Load
Balancing messages. [HELLO-OPT], this document recommends 34(0x22)
as the new "PIM DR Load Balancing Capability Hello Option", and
35(0x23) as the new "PIM DR Load Balancing GDR Hello Option".
(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.