Hierarchical Join/Prune Attributes
RFC 7887
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2016-06-10
|
08 | (System) | IANA registries were updated to include RFC7887 |
|
2016-06-09
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-06-08
|
08 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2016-06-06
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7887">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2016-05-27
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7887">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2016-05-09
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2016-04-28
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-04-28
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2016-04-28
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2016-04-27
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2016-04-27
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2016-04-27
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
|
2016-04-27
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Stig Venaas | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2016-04-25
|
08 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-08.txt |
|
2016-04-23
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-04-21
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2016-04-21
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2016-04-20
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2016-04-20
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-04-20
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2016-04-20
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] Section 5 contains the following text "Note that it also needs to include the Join-Attribute Hello option as specified in [RFC5384]." … [Ballot comment] Section 5 contains the following text "Note that it also needs to include the Join-Attribute Hello option as specified in [RFC5384]." but it does not talk about what exactly happens if a message is received with the Hierarchical Join/Prune Attribute but without the Join-Attribute. Can you clarify what happens in this case? I would also prefer it if this can be reworded as a MUST. |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's comments. |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Two related but minor points: - section 5, last para: can a router always know for sure that everyone who'll get a message … [Ballot comment] Two related but minor points: - section 5, last para: can a router always know for sure that everyone who'll get a message sent on an interface knows about this new encoding? If not, the "MUST NOT" here is incorrect. One could implement a MUST NOT that said to only send this to routers who'd expressed the hello option, but saying that the MUST NOT applies to everyone accessible from the sender's interface is arguably not implementable. The real-world result would be the same though, even if one's code would better match the latter way of describing the MUST NOT, so not that big a deal. - section 6: If a router had a bug that caused it to crash (or do bad stuff) when it unexpectedly receives a message with this new encoding, then if I faked a message with the new hello option to a peer of that router, I might be able to cause someone else to crash the victim/target. There are probably other bad things I can do if I can fake a hello like that, but this is perhaps a new one. I'm not claiming that's worth a mention though, unless the authors/chairs/shepherd want to add it. |
|
2016-04-19
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2016-04-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ron Bonica |
|
2016-04-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ron Bonica |
|
2016-04-12
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2016-04-11
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2016-04-11
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
|
2016-04-11
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2016-04-11
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-04-11
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2016-04-06
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
|
2016-04-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-04-04
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-07.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-07.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the PIM-Hello Options subregistry of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/ a single, new option will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Length: Name: Hierarchical Join/Prune Attribute Hello Option Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> What is the Length of the Hierarchical Join/Prune Attribute Hello Option? As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Second, the current PIM Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type Field registry in the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/ is to be renamed to: PIM Address Encoding Types IANA understands 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 Specialist ICANN |
|
2016-03-24
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ron Bonica |
|
2016-03-24
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ron Bonica |
|
2016-03-23
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna |
|
2016-03-23
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna |
|
2016-03-23
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
|
2016-03-23
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
|
2016-03-23
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Benoit Claise was rejected |
|
2016-03-23
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Benoit Claise |
|
2016-03-23
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Benoit Claise |
|
2016-03-21
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-03-21
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: pim-chairs@ietf.org, mmcbride7@gmail.com, aretana@cisco.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: pim-chairs@ietf.org, mmcbride7@gmail.com, aretana@cisco.com, draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, "Mike McBride" <mmcbride7@gmail.com> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-07.txt> (Hierarchical Join/Prune Attributes) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim) to consider the following document: - 'Hierarchical Join/Prune Attributes' <draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-07.txt> as Proposed Standard 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 2016-04-11. 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 a hierachical method of encoding Join attributes, providing a more efficient encoding when the same attribute values need to be specified for multiple sources in a PIM Join/Prune message. This document updates RFC 5384 by renaming the Encoding Type registry specified there. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2016-03-21
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2016-03-21
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2016-03-21
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-03-21
|
07 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-07.txt |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-04-21 |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-03-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-03-17
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2016-03-17
|
06 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-06.txt |
|
2016-01-21
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | ===== AD Review ===== I just finished reading this document. I think that the description of the general idea and of the operation when attributes … ===== AD Review ===== I just finished reading this document. I think that the description of the general idea and of the operation when attributes are in fact included at different levels should be made a lot clearer than what it is now. The document only presents an idea of how to include attributes at different levels, but not what to do with them once they're in. I would have liked to see sections with more details about how to process attributes to be sent and/or received (similar to RFC5384 and 5496..). Clarifying the text, including the IANA Considerations, and updating the RFC4601 reference are all improvements that I would like to see in the document before starting the IETF Last Call. Please see my detailed comments below. Thanks! Alvaro. Major: 1. Replace the RFC4601 references for draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis. 2. General Idea. After reading the text a couple of times, I think I got it! :-) If the new "Hierarchical Join/Prune Attribute Hello Option" is included in the PIM Hello, then it means that the PIM Attribute from RFC5384 can now also be encoded in the Upstream Neighbor Address and the Group Address. Right? [Note that some of the comments below are really minor on their own, but add up to not clearly explaining what is intended, so including a succinct explanation would go a long way.] * "This document provides a hierarchical way of encoding attributes and their values in a Join/Prune message…" This document doesn't define a new encoding, the encoding from RFC5384 is still used. This document does define a mechanism to include attributes in a hierarchical may… * "This document extends this by specifying the same encoding type also for Encoded-Unicast and Encoded-Group formats." "This" what? This document allows the use of type 1…so that Encoded-…may contain a sequence of attributes… The last paragraph in the Introduction is somewhat redundant, but it does a much better job at explaining what is going on. * Section 4. (PIM Address Encoding Types) ** I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is (not to mention some of the speculative language: "it is possible", "one could have"). It seems to rehash information that is already in RFC5384 and draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis (BTW, it wouldn't hurt to put a reference related to type 0). The only conclusion seems to be the renaming of the registry. Is that the purpose, to justify the renaming of the registry? ** Section 3. (Hierarchical Join/Prune Attribute Definition) "In this document we make use of this to allow Join/Prune attributes in each of these addresses, using the encoding in Section 4." What is "this"? I don't see any encoding defined in Section 4 (or anywhere else). 3. Operation when multiple attributes are present in the hierarchy. * The hierarchy seems straight forward: attributes in the Upstream Neighbor Address take precedence over ones in the Group Address (maybe use "Multicast Group Address n" to be consistent with the packet), which then take precedence over the source ones (Encoded-Source Address). That is fine, but this sentence in the last paragraph seems to imply that the attributes in the source are always applied (regardless of the hierarchy): "Note that Join/Prune attributes are still applied to sources as specified in [RFC5384]." * I'm assuming that the rules specified in RFC5384 for the Encoded-Source Address apply to the Upstream and Group addresses in this document. For example, RFC5384 says that a "type 1 Encoded-Source Address MUST contain at least one Join Attribute. The way to specify that there are no Join Attributes for a particular tree is to use the type 0 Encoded-Source Address." Please explicitly indicate whether the procedures in RFC5384 apply here or not...or if some do and others don't…or if some of the rules change. * Should the behavior for higher level attributes affect the lower levels? One of the reasons I'm asking is because RFC5496 (The RPF Vector TLV) says in Section 3.3.2. (Processing a Received Vector Attribute) that "a received PIM Join that contains a Vector Attribute, a router MUST first check to see if the Vector IP address is one of its own IP addresses. If so, the Vector Attribute is discarded, and not passed further upstream." If this attribute is included so that it affects all sources, should all other Vector Attributes be discarded from the lower levels? * Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the other attribute RFCs, but I think that other similar issues may come up. * Related question: are there cases where it doesn't make sense to include a specific attribute at a specific level? What happens then? 4. IANA Considerations * The Introduction says that this "document defines a new IANA registry for PIM encoding types", but the IANA Considerations Section seems to just be renaming the existing registry. So it is not a new registry, just a new name. * "the more correct name Join/Prune attributes" Shouldn't this result in renaming the "PIM Join Attribute Types" registry too? 5. Security Considerations. Can including an attribute at a specific level (maybe where it doesn't make sense — think not just of current attributes) cause an unintended consequence? Knowing that the attributes can be changed (from RFC5384), what are the risks? You should at least point to the security considerations in RFC5384, even though that doesn't say much. Minor: 1. The Abstract should have a sentence about the update to RFC5384. Something simple: "This document updates RFC5384 by…" Also, similar text should also appear in the Introduction (with maybe some more details). The 3rd paragraph in the Introduction tries, but it is not crisp enough (see above). * I think that the update is just related to the registries. * The hierarchical construct is just an extension, not an update. 2. Section 1. (Introduction): Please add a reference to draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis when mentioning "Encoded-Unicast and Encoded-Group". 3. Hello Option. The use of this term is not consistent. Sometimes it is referred to as just "Hello Option", but the full name seems to be "Hierarchical Join/Prune Attribute Hello Option". This is specially important in Section 7. (IANA Considerations), where the registry should be specifically called out too. Nits: 1. Section 3 uses "we" several times. 3rd person would be better. 2. I'm a little surprised that only one RFC2119 keyword is used. I'm not suggesting that you add more, as the text can be made clear without them. Just an observation.. 3. I am also surprised at the minimal changes between draft-venaas-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-00 and the current version [1] and how little discussion happened on the list. Again, just an observation. [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-venaas-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-00&url2=draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-05 |
|
2016-01-21
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2016-01-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2016-01-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2016-01-18
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Mike McBride" <mmcbride7@gmail.com>, aretana@cisco.com from "Mike McBride" <mmcbride7@gmail.com> |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | (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? … (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? Standards Track. 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 provides a hierarchical way of encoding attributes and their values in a Join/Prune message, so that if the same attribute and value is to apply for all the sources, it needs only be specified once in the message. Similarly, if all the sources in a specific group set share a specific attribute and value, it needs only be specified once for the entire group set. Working Group Summary: This draft has been thoroughly vetted over the last three years. There has been light, but unanimous, support for the document including from the recent WGLC. Only support has been shown, nothing controversial in this draft. Its a fairly straight forward and simple document, yet beneficial to enhancement of the pim protocol. Document Quality: At least one vendor (Cisco) has indicted that they will implement 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 the working group and the chairs, 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.Stig is also an author. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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. We had a few individuals, from a different companies, indicating their support. (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. Yes, this draft updates 5384 (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 but does update RFC5384. (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). A new attribute type from the PIM Join Attribute Types registry needs to be assigned by IANA for the Explicit RPF Vector attribute. The proposed value is 4. (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. The current PIM Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type Field registry should be changed into a PIM Address Encoding Type registry. The only required change is the name of the registry. The contents remain the same. A new PIM Hello Option type needs to be assigned. The string TBD needs to be replaced with the permanently assigned value. (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 |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | Notification list changed to "Mike McBride" <mmcbride7@gmail.com> |
|
2016-01-16
|
05 | Mike McBride | Document shepherd changed to Mike McBride |
|
2016-01-07
|
05 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-05.txt |
|
2015-07-02
|
04 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-04.txt |
|
2014-09-22
|
03 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-03.txt |
|
2014-02-14
|
02 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-02.txt |
|
2013-11-15
|
01 | Stig Venaas | This document now replaces draft-venaas-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr instead of None |
|
2013-10-18
|
01 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-01.txt |
|
2013-10-08
|
00 | Stig Venaas | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-00.txt |