A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization over Layer 3
RFC 8293
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-01-02
|
11 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8293, changed title to 'A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization over Layer 3', changed … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8293, changed title to 'A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization over Layer 3', changed abstract to 'This document provides a framework for supporting multicast traffic in a network that uses Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3). Both infrastructure multicast and application-specific multicast are discussed. It describes the various mechanisms that can be used for delivering such traffic as well as the data plane and control plane considerations for each of the mechanisms.', changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-01-02, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
2018-01-02
|
11 | (System) | RFC published |
2017-12-21
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-12-04
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-11-30
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2017-10-25
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2017-10-25
|
11 | Colin Perkins | Request for Telechat review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Colin Perkins. Sent review to list. |
2017-10-24
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-10-24
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-10-24
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-10-24
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2017-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-10-24
|
11 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2017-10-23
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my discuss! |
2017-10-23
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2017-10-23
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-10-23
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2017-10-23
|
11 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-11.txt |
2017-10-23
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-23
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vinay Bannai , Linda Dunbar , Mike McBride , Anoop Ghanwani , Ram Krishnan |
2017-10-23
|
11 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-12
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-10-12
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Is there supposed to be text in section 1.3? |
2017-10-12
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja's Discuss, but I've been watching the conversation with the TSV-ART reviewer and I'm sure the right things will happen. … [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja's Discuss, but I've been watching the conversation with the TSV-ART reviewer and I'm sure the right things will happen. Thanks for putting this document together. It seems helpful. |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Firstly, thanks to Tianran Zhou for the OpsDir review -- please address his nits. I have an additional nit: Section 3. Multicast mechanisms … [Ballot comment] Firstly, thanks to Tianran Zhou for the OpsDir review -- please address his nits. I have an additional nit: Section 3. Multicast mechanisms in networks that use NVO3 "What makes NVO3 different from any other network is that some NVEs, especially the NVE implemented on server, ..." s/server/servers/ ? |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Telechat review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins |
2017-10-11
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Telechat review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins |
2017-10-10
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-10-09
|
10 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot discuss] Based on the feedback provided by the tsv-art review (Thanks Colin!) I would like to see a paragraph or short section that discusses … [Ballot discuss] Based on the feedback provided by the tsv-art review (Thanks Colin!) I would like to see a paragraph or short section that discusses how replication as used in section 3.2 and 3.3 can impact multicast congestion control and also provides a pointer to draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-09 in case ECN is supported in the NVO network which can likely be the case in data center scenarios. |
2017-10-09
|
10 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-10-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2017-10-05
|
10 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-10.txt |
2017-10-05
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-05
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vinay Bannai , Linda Dunbar , Mike McBride , Anoop Ghanwani , Ram Krishnan |
2017-10-05
|
10 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-05
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Carl Wallace. |
2017-10-04
|
09 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. Sent review to list. |
2017-10-02
|
09 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-10-02
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2017-10-02
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-10-02
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-10-02
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-10-02
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-09-22
|
09 | Tianran Zhou | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tianran Zhou. Sent review to list. |
2017-09-21
|
09 | Colin Perkins | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Colin Perkins. |
2017-09-21
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-09-21
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-09-20
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2017-09-20
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2017-09-20
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-09-20
|
09 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist |
2017-09-20
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2017-09-20
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2017-09-19
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins |
2017-09-19
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-10-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework@ietf.org, Sam Aldrin , nvo3@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-10-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework@ietf.org, Sam Aldrin , nvo3@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, aldrin.ietf@gmail.com, nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization Overlays) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Network Virtualization Overlays WG (nvo3) to consider the following document: - 'A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization Overlays' as Informational 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 2017-10-02. 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 discusses a framework of supporting multicast traffic in a network that uses Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3). Both infrastructure multicast and application-specific multicast are discussed. It describes the various mechanisms that can be used for delivering such traffic as well as the data plane and control plane considerations for each of the mechanisms. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2597/ |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-10-12 |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-09-18
|
09 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Sam Aldrin | (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? Informational RFC. It is indicated on the title page header. (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 discusses a framework of supporting multicast traffic in a network that uses Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3). Both infrastructure multicast and application-specific multicast are discussed. It describes the various mechanisms that can be used for delivering such traffic as well as the data plane and control plane considerations for each of the mechanisms. 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? This document was extensively discussed within NVo3 and MBONED WG. Many comments were provided by various members as part of WG adoption and WG LC. All of the comments were clearly answered and the draft got updated appropriately. There were no controversial or pending issues remaining. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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? 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? Authors have indicated that few vendors have implemented the solution and was deployed as well. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shephers - Sam Aldrin Responsible AD - Alia Atlas (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. Thoroughly reviewed the document for its content. It is well written and concise. All of the emails and review comments pertaining to the document were reviewed. Cross checked with MBONED WG for the comments and discussion points. Authors have addressed each of the comments and made necessary changes as needed. The documents is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There are no concerns. (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. This document do not introduce any new security considerations beyond what is described in NVo3 architecture document RFC 8014. (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. None. (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? An IPR was disclosed (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2597/). Authors have confirmed that, apart from the disclosed IPR, no other known IPR exists, related to this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2597/) was submitted using general procedure. No discussion related to this disclosure happened within the WG. (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? WG strongly feel the making this document as Informational RFC. (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.) None. (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 issues found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Document was reviewed by NVo3 WG and cross referenced by MBONED WG. (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? None. (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. None. (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. None. (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). No new IANA registrations requested. (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. None. (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. None. |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Sam Aldrin | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Sam Aldrin | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Sam Aldrin | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Sam Aldrin | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Sam Aldrin | Changed document writeup |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09.txt |
2017-06-23
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-23
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vinay Bannai , Linda Dunbar , Mike McBride , Anoop Ghanwani , Ram Krishnan |
2017-06-23
|
09 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-12
|
08 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-08.txt |
2017-05-12
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-12
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vinay Bannai , Linda Dunbar , Mike McBride , Anoop Ghanwani , Ram Krishnan |
2017-05-12
|
08 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-16
|
07 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-07.txt |
2017-02-16
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-16
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Anoop Ghanwani" , "Linda Dunbar" , "Vinay Bannai" , "Ram Krishnan" , "Mike McBride" |
2017-02-16
|
07 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-01
|
06 | Linda Dunbar | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-06.txt |
2017-02-01
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-01
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Anoop Ghanwani" , "Linda Dunbar" , "Vinay Bannai" , "Ram Krishnan" , "Mike McBride" |
2017-02-01
|
06 | Linda Dunbar | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-14
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-10-03
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>, "Sam Aldrin" <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> from "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> |
2016-10-03
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Sam Aldrin |
2016-05-09
|
05 | Anoop Ghanwani | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-05.txt |
2016-05-04
|
04 | Matthew Bocci | Waiting for response from MBONED to see if further review required |
2016-05-04
|
04 | Matthew Bocci | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2016-05-04
|
04 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2016-05-04
|
04 | Matthew Bocci | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2016-02-15
|
04 | Anoop Ghanwani | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-04.txt |
2016-02-15
|
03 | Anoop Ghanwani | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-03.txt |
2016-02-10
|
02 | Anoop Ghanwani | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-02.txt |
2015-11-25
|
01 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> |
2015-11-25
|
01 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci |
2015-11-09
|
01 | Anoop Ghanwani | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-01.txt |
2015-05-11
|
00 | Benson Schliesser | This document now replaces draft-ghanwani-nvo3-mcast-framework instead of None |
2015-05-11
|
00 | Anoop Ghanwani | New version available: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-00.txt |