Skip to main content

Mandatory Features in a Layer 3 Multicast BGP/MPLS VPN Solution
RFC 6517

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
06 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'More that one set of mechanisms to support multicast in a layer 3 BGP/MPLS VPN has …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'More that one set of mechanisms to support multicast in a layer 3 BGP/MPLS VPN has been defined. These are presented in the documents that define them as optional building blocks.

To enable interoperability between implementations, this document defines a subset of features that is considered mandatory for a multicast BGP/MPLS VPN implementation. This will help implementers and deployers understand which L3VPN multicast requirements are best satisfied by each option. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.')
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from l3vpn-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations@ietf.org to (None)
2012-02-21
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2012-02-20
06 (System) RFC published
2011-09-14
06 Adrian Farrel Responsible AD has been changed to Stewart Bryant from Ross Callon
2011-05-27
06 Ben Niven-Jenkins Recording current status.
2011-05-27
06 Ben Niven-Jenkins IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2010-03-15
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Scott Kelly.
2010-03-15
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-15
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-03-15
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-03-15
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-03-15
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-03-15
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-03-12
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11
2010-03-11
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-11
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-03-11
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot comment]
RFC 4364 is cited but the reference is not defined.
2010-03-11
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-03-10
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-03-10
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-03-10
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-03-04
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2010-03-04
06 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2010-03-04
06 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2010-03-04
06 Ross Callon
PROTO write-up by Danny McPherson:

Mandatory Features in a Layer 3 Multicast BGP/MPLS VPN Solution
<draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06>

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for …
PROTO write-up by Danny McPherson:

Mandatory Features in a Layer 3 Multicast BGP/MPLS VPN Solution
<draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06>

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

  The Document Shepherd is myself (Danny McPherson). I believe that
  the 06 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication
  as an Informational RFC.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

  The document passed the L3VPN WG Last Call, several times, and
  two sections in particular (Inter-AS and Appendix A) were given a
  couple of additional rounds of WG review and LC, with many comments
  received and most addressed by the document authors.  I believe all
  substantial comments have been addressed and WG consensus to progress
  the document clearly exists.

(1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

  No, this document has been baking far to long and needs to progress.
  New work adjacent to this might be useful if the WG has the energy to
  pursue it.

(1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

  It was quite difficult to progress this document in the WG because it
  has been baking for so long.  In particular, many participants have
  implemented or deployed either or both of the L3VPN mcast solutions and
  become sensitive to comments about scale or capabilities of the other.
  Nonetheless, WG consensus exists to publish this document in its
  current form and move on. 

(1.e)  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?

  I believe there exists clear consensus now to publish this document
  and move on.  It's been a long and painful road but for anyone that's
  followed, that should be obvious.  There are some people that still
  have concern with this draft, and all but one of them remained silent
  during WG call for consensus to publish this document, as opposed to
  a significant majority saying it should be published. 

(1.f)  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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

  On previous revisions I did receive an email threatening an appeal if
  published, be I received no such statement on the -06 revision.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

  There are several nits that need to be cleaned up before publication,
  but nothing substantial.

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  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
        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document split its references, beyond some expired references
(not surprisingly) that need to be updated, it looks fine.

(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  This document makes no requests of IANA.

(1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

  No section of this document is written in a formal language.

(1.k)  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
          Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
          and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
          an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
          or introduction.

  More that one set of mechanisms to support multicast in a layer 3
  BGP/MPLS VPN has been defined.  These are presented in the documents
  that define them as optional building blocks.

  To enable interoperability between implementations, this document
  defines a subset of features that is considered mandatory for a
  multicast BGP/MPLS VPN implementation.  This will help implementers
  and deployers understand which L3VPN multicast requirements are best
  satisfied by each option.

        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?

  Only as already outlined above, nothing beyond that.

        Document Quality
          Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

  Not applicable.

          Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
          to implement the specification?

  I cannot speak authoritatively to this question, although I do know
  there are many deployments across various vendors.

          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?

Not to the best of my knowledge, and the contributors section, as
well as the list of authors beyond the editors seems to appropriately
address this.

          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?

Nope, none of the above.
2010-03-04
06 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 by Ross Callon
2010-03-04
06 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2010-03-04
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-03-03
06 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.
2010-02-20
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2010-02-20
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2010-02-18
06 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-02-18
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2010-02-18
06 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2010-02-18
06 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2010-02-18
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-02-18
06 (System) Last call text was added
2010-02-18
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-02-18
06 Ross Callon Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested
2010-02-02
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt
2009-10-26
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-05.txt
2009-07-10
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-04.txt
2009-04-29
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03.txt
2009-03-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-02.txt
2008-12-09
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01.txt
2008-11-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-00.txt