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 |