Shepherd writeup

(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:
PIM Sparse-Mode uses a Rendezvous Point and shared trees to forward
multicast packets from new sources. Once last hop routers receive
packets from a new source, they may join the Shortest Path Tree for
the source for optimal forwarding. This draft defines a new
mechanism that provides a way to support PIM Sparse Mode (SM) without
the need for PIM registers, RPs or shared trees. Multicast source
information is flooded throughout the multicast domain using a new
generic PIM flooding mechanism. This allows last hop routers to
learn about new sources without receiving initial data packets.

Working Group Summary:
There has only been positive feedback for moving this draft to an
experimental RFC. We have complete consensus for progressing this 
document after face to face meeting discussions and on the list. 

Document Quality:

Its of good quality with support, and authorship, from a vendor, the
US Dept. of Defense and from the Swedish Defense Administration.


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 the working group, the chairs, and the AD (Alvaro), the document is ready for publication. My Co-Chair, Stig Venaas, has also reviewed the document and, as also an author, 
agrees that the  document is ready for publication as experimental.

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

No, all comments have been addressed with no controversies.

(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.


(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?

Yes. Authors have submitted Cisco Systems IPR 2011-11-04 ID#1647

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

Yes, disclosures have been made and reminder sent to the list. 

(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. There hasn't been a lot of discussion
as of late, but the responses we did receive have all been in

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See 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?


(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.

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).

This document requires the assignment of a new PIM message type for
the PIM Flooding Mechanism (PFM). IANA is also requested to create a
registry for PFM TLVs, with type 0 assigned to the "Source Group
Holdtime" TLV. Values in the range 1-65535 are "Unassigned".
Assignments for the registry are to be made according to the policy
"IETF Review" as defined in [RFC5226].

(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.

IANA is being requested to create a registry for PFM TLVs, with 
type 0 assigned to the "Source Group Holdtime" TLV. Likely no expert
review needed.

(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