PIM Join Attributes for Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Environments
draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-06

[Ballot comment]
Discussion inspired by Lucy's Gen-ART review might result in some clarifications in the document. Please make sure any clarifications, if you decide to have them, are done before the document is finally approved.

[Ballot comment]
I think it would be helpful to have a paragraph on the goal of the "experiment", even if the goal is to gather implementation/deployment/operational experience.

There are a number of abbreviations that should be expanded on first mention.

[Ballot comment]
For the values for the "transport" (and I do agree with Mirja that it isn't entirely clear what should be there - I
was expecting different encapsulations), I'd recommend having 0 as being unallocatable & having 255 be reserved for
future use as was suggested in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-code-point-reservation-bcp.

[Ballot comment]
One minor but I think important comment (I don't think this justifies a discuss but I would really like to see that changed or at least discussed):

For me as a 'transport person' using the plain term '(underlaying) transport' is really confusing because it's very unspecific. In section 4.1. you actually call it the 'type of transport' and later on you talk about the mode of transport, but in general you just talk about the transport which is also reflected in the name of the attribute. In draft-ietf-taps-transports we classify this transport feature as part of addressing. I guess that might not be completely appropriate for your case. However, I would like to see the terminology here cleaned up to not only talk about '(underlaying) transport' but choose a more specific term. Given that you only have a 0 or 1 as choices in the attribute, I would even recommend to call this attribute 'Unicast Replication' or something like this instead of just 'Transport'.

One other minor comment:
There are many abbreviations that are not spelled out once and make the reading slightly harder, e.g. ITR and ETR and so on

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We have a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

Upon approval of this document, we understand that there are two registry actions to complete.

First, in the PIM Join Attribute Types subregistry of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/

two new types are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Transport Attribute
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Receiver RLOC Attribute
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the author express a preference for the use of values 5 and 6 for these new attribute types.

Second, a new registry is to be created called the PIM Join/Prune Transport Types registry.

QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a new registry on the List of all IANA maintained protocol parameter registries or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained?

The new registry will be managed via IETF review as defined in RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Value Transport Type Reference
------+--------------------------------+--------------------
0 multicast [ RFC-to-be ]
1 unicast [ RFC-to-be ]
2-255 unassigned

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: pim-chairs@ietf.org, mmcbride7@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com, pim@ietf.org, "Mike McBride"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PIM Join Attributes for LISP Environments) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG
(pim) to consider the following document:
- 'PIM Join Attributes for LISP Environments'
  as Experimental RFC

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 2016-10-24. 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


  This document defines two PIM Join/Prune attributes that support the
  construction of multicast distribution trees where the root and
  receivers are located in different LISP sites.  These attributes
  allow the receiver site to select between unicast and multicast
  underlay transport and to convey the receiver ETR's RLOC address to
  the control plane of the root ITR.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp/ballot/


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

==== AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-04 ====

I have a couple of Major comments (the most significant being the one related to the IANA registry for the Transport field).  I think all comments should be easy to resolve.  I do need you to please resolve (at least) the comment about the reference to I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility before I start the IETF Last Call — you can update the text to resolve the other comments along with any last call comments.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.


Major:

M1. Section 4.1. (Transport Attribute Format) defines two values for the Transport field.  However, it is not completely clear whether this field is a bit-field or if it can include values from 0-255 (I'm assuming the latter).  Also, there is no guidance to IANA as to how other values should be managed (registry creation).  Please define the registry.

M2. Errors.  What should the receiver of the attributes do if the attributes contain an unsupported or unknown value (in the Transport, or even the Addr Family)?


Minor:

m1. Please (at least) add a reference to RFC5384 in the Security Considerations section.

m2. References

m2.1. RFC4601 has been Obsoleted by RFC7761.
m2.2. I-D.ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr has been published as RFC7887.
m2.3. [AFI] is listed in the References section, but not un the text.
m2.4. I don't think that I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility needs to be Normative reference.  Note that if it is, then the RFC Editor will hold publication of this document until that other one comes through (at at this point it still isn't a WG document).


Nits:

n1. s/URPF/uRPF

n2. There's a superfluous " "> " in 5.1.

(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?

Experimental. This is clearly stated and is the agreed upon status between the WG, chairs and AD.

(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 defines two PIM Join/Prune attributes that support the construction of multicast distribution
trees where the root and receivers are located in different LISP sites.  These attributes allow the receiver
site to select between unicast and multicast underlay transport and to convey the receiver ETR's RLOC
address to the control plane of the root ITR.

Working Group Summary:
There was several comments on the mailing list during the working group last call. Both the PIM and LISP
WG's were included. All comments have been addressed in this latest draft. We have complete consensus
for progressing this document.

Document Quality:

At least two vendors have indicated that they have implemented the functionality documented in this draft.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Mike McBride, PIM WG co-chair. Alvaro Retana is the 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 the IESG.

Mike McBride, PIM WG Co-Chair, is the document Shepherd. After thorough review by two working groups, the chairs, and the AD (Alvaro), the document is ready for publication. My Co-Chair, Stig Venaas, has also reviewed the document and agrees that the document is ready for publication.

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

No, there were several comments made during the WGLC and all have been addressed.

(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.

I have no concerns about this document.

(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?

Authors have confirmed no IPR

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

No IPR

(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 consensus is solid. From two WG's. We had many individuals, from a variety of companies, indicate their support and offered comments.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 additional nits found.

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

Not Applicable

(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 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.

Publication of this document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

Two new PIM Join/Prune attribute types need to be assigned.  Type 5 is being requested for the Transport Attribute.  Type 6 is being requested for the Receiver RLOC Attribute.

(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 new registry, only new attribute types from an existing registry

(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.

Not Applicable