Interoperation between Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) and Multicast Source Directory Protocol (MSDP) Source-Active Routes
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-08

[Ballot comment]
This looks like a nice, simple way to improve the interoperation scenarios.
All my comments are relatively minor (and most are explicitly classified as nits).

Section 2

  Section "14.  Supporting PIM-SM without Inter-Site Shared C-Trees" of
  [RFC6514] specifies the procedures for MVPN PEs to discover (C-S,C-G)
  via MVPN Source Active A-D routes and then send (C-S,C-G) C-multicast
  routes towards the ingress PEs, [...]

Just to check my understanding: when we say "send (C-S,C-G) C-multicast
routes toward the ingress PEs", does that refer to the "Source Tree Join
C-multicast route"s that RFC 6514 describes?  Would it be helpful to
write it out using the same terminology?

Section 3

  When an MVPN PE advertises an MVPN SA route following procedures in
  [RFC6514] for the "spt-only" mode, it SHOULD attach an "MVPN SA RP-
  address Extended Community".  [...]

I don't really understand why this is only a "SHOULD".  If the whole
point of this document is to let MVPN S-A announcements get propagated
out to MSDP, it seems required, and people who don't care about that
scenario can ignore the document entirely; they don't need SHOULD vs
MUST to get out of it.

  In addition to procedures in [RFC6514], an MVPN PE may be provisioned
  to generate MSDP SA messages from received MVPN SA routes, with or

When would something that implements the rest of this document not be
expected to generate MSDP SA messages in such a manner?  (That is, why
use "may be"?)

Section 4

I'm always a little wary of claims of "no additional security
considerations", though in many cases there are no *significant* new
security considerations, even if there are some considerations that are
new.  In this case, we have the option of using the local RP address for
the C-G when constructing a MSDP SA message (when the EC is not present
in the MVPN SA NRLI), and since this causes different nodes in the MVPN
to see different RPs for the group, it's not immediately clear that
there are no relevant security considerations from having different
views of the RP.  What is the behavior when different nodes are using
different RPs?

(There is also the fact that the address of the RP is now sent to a
larger population by virtue of being in the new BCP EC, which should
cause us to consider if there are any privacy considerations from the
broadedend information distribution.  I don't see anything noteworthy,
though.)

RFC 6514's security considerations section mentions (by section number,
not name) that for the spt-only mode implementations should have an
upper bound on the number of SA A-D routes.  IIUC, the mechanisms in
this document do not change relative resource consumption in a way that
might require the specific value of the upper bound to change, but
please confirm.

The security considerations for RFC 3618 mandate implementation of
TCP-MD5, which is a bit dated.  Should we say anything about TCP-AO (RFC
5925) here?

Section 7.2

While RFC 3618 is not specifically cited in any location that would
require it to be classified as normative, I think that it should be
classified as normative, and thus presumably that more references to it
should also be added where the normative use of MSDP is mentioned in the
text.

NITS

Section 1

  Familiarity with MVPN and MSDP protocols and procedures is assumed.
  Some terminologies are listed below for convenience.

References for MVPN and MSDP would go well here.

Section 2

  similar to MSDP Source-Active messages [RFC3618].  For a VPN, one or
  more of the PEs, say PE1, either act as a C-RP and learn of (C-S,C-G)
  via PIM Register messages, or have MSDP sessions with some MSDP peers
  and learn (C-S,C-G) via MSDP SA messages.  [...]

Since we specified "say PE1", we should probably take the "one" branch
of "one or more" and use "has" and "learns" for singular/plural agreement.

  corresponding (C-*,C-G) state learnt from its CE.  PE2 may also have
  MSDP sessions for the VPN with other C-RPs at its site, but [RFC6514]
  does not specify that it advertises MSDP SA messages to those MSDP

I suggest s/it/PE2/ just to avoid any doubt.

  which are redundant and unnecessary.  Also notice that the PE1-PE2
  MSDP session is VPN-specific, while the BGP sessions over which the
  MVPN routes are advertised are not.

I suggest s/VPN-specific/used only for a single MVPN/

  o  VPN extranet mechanisms can be used to propagate (C-S,C-G)
      information across VPNs with flexible policy control.

Is RFC 7900 a good reference for "VPN extranet"?  I had to look it up...

  contain the source and group.  MSDP requires the RP address
  information in order to perform peer-RPF.  Therefore, this document

I'd suggest expanding RPF on first use.

Section 3

  attach the EC), the local RP address for the C-G is used.  In that
  case, it is possible that the receiving PE's RP for the C-G is
  actually the MSDP peer to which the generated MSDP message is

I suggest s/receiving PE's RP/RP inserted into the MSDP SA message/.

  from before.  The previously advertised MSDP SA message with the
  older RP address will be timed out.

I guess technically it's the state that the older message induced that
times out, not the message itself.

  direction - upon receiving an MVPN SA route in a VPN generate
  corresponding MSDP SA and advertise to MSDP peers in the same VPN.

"generate a"; "advertise it"

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.  Editorial.

OLD
This document extends this capability in the reverse
  direction - upon receiving an MVPN SA route in a VPN generate
  corresponding MSDP SA and advertise to MSDP peers in the same VPN.

NEW
This document extends this capability in the reverse direction - upon receiving an MVPN SA route in a VPN, the PE generates a corresponding MSDP SA and advertises it to MSDP peers in the same VPN.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you Alvaro for explaining to me that MSDP is IPv4-only so this document must be IPv4-only as well. I am now clearing my previous DISCUSS ballot.

Thanks to the authors, WG, and doc shepherd for the work done (though the text is very hard to read, quite dense, and little context is given).

Regards

-éric

[Ballot comment]
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 2, paragraph 9, nit:
> rce Active route using an Extended Community so this information can be share
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^
Use a comma before 'so' if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

Section 2.1, paragraph 2, nit:
> ation for the "rpt-spt" mode is outside of the scope of this document. In th
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^
This phrase is redundant. Consider using "outside".

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking  DISCUSS point and one non-blocking one.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==
While I am an expert neither in multicast not in VPN, I wonder why this document is only about IPv4 and not a single word is written about IPv6.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this short document! I have a few questions and comments, below.

1. Section 3

  The MVPN PEs that act as customer RPs or have one or more MSDP
  sessions in a VPN (or the global table in case of GTM) are treated as
  an MSDP mesh group for that VPN (or the global table).  In the rest
  of the document, it is referred to as the PE mesh group.  It MUST NOT
  include other MSDP speakers, and is integrated into the rest of MSDP

On first reading I had difficulty following “it MUST NOT include other MSDP speakers“. You mean, MSDP speakers from another VPN, right? It didn’t come together for me until I reread it and realized the referent of “it“ is “the PE mesh group“. Anyway, this confused at least one reader, it might stand a little rewording. (Replacing “it” with “The PE mesh group” in the last sentence would do the trick.)

2. Section 3

  In addition to procedures in [RFC6514], an MVPN PE may be provisioned
  to generate MSDP SA messages from received MVPN SA routes, with or
  without local policy control.  If a received MVPN SA route is to
  trigger MSDP SA message,

There are a couple things wrong with the preceding clause. First, it’s either missing an article before “MSDP” as in “trigger an MSDP SA message” or possibly “message” is supposed to be pluralized as in “trigger MSDP messages”. Second and more troublesome, that “if... is to trigger” seems wrong, that’s normally a construct which would introduce a precondition but that’s not what happens. Can you reword this? Do you mean “if a received MVPN SA route triggers an MSDP SA message”?

              it is treated as if a corresponding MSDP SA
  message was received from within the PE mesh group and normal MSDP
  procedure is followed (e.g. an MSDP SA message is advertised to other
  MSDP peers outside the PE mesh group). 

Your use of “e.g.”, meaning “for example”, implies other things could happen instead as a result of normal MSDP procedure, and this is just a for-instance. Right? Just checking.

              The (S,G) information comes
  from the (C-S,C-G) encoding in the MVPN SA NLRI and the RP address
  comes from the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" mentioned above.  If the
  received MVPN SA route does not have the EC (this could be from a
  legacy PE that does not have the capability to attach the EC), the
  local RP address for the C-G is used.  In that case, it is possible
  that receiving PE's RP for the C-G is actually the MSDP peer to which

“The receiving PE’s”

  the generated MSDP message is advertised, causing the peer to discard
  it due to RPF failure.  To get around that problem the peer SHOULD
  use local policy to accept the MSDP SA message.

That sounds pretty gross considering the MSDP state is built dynamically (isn’t it?) but ok.

  An MVPN PE MAY treat only the best MVPN SA route selected by BGP
  route selection process (instead of all MVPN SA routes) for a given

“The BGP route selection process”

  (C-S,C-G) as a received MSDP SA message (and advertise corresponding
  MSDP message).  In that case, if the selected best MVPN SA route does

“The corresponding”

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-Types registry on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

the following registration:

Sub-type Value: 0x20
Name: MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-04-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Matthew Bocci , bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org, mankamana mishra , mankamis@cisco.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - 'MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-04-27. 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 specifies the procedures for interoperation between
  Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) Source Active routes and
  customer Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Source Active
  routes, which is useful for MVPN provider networks offering services
  to customers with an existing MSDP infrastructure.  Without the
  procedures described in this document, VPN-specific MSDP sessions are
  required among the PEs that are customer MSDP peers.  This document
  updates RFC6514.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
Yes, type of RFC is indicated in header. It would be going as proposed standard.

(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 defines procedure to remove requirement for MSDP between sites in case of MVPN deployment. and enhances source active routes to carry relevant information.


Working Group Summary:

We had good support for this work. there are many vendors planning to implement this document.  this work removed need for extra protocol for mVPN deployments.

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, YANG 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?

Vendors with mVPN deployment did show interest to implement this document. Since this does not  introduce any new CLI there was noo Yang model consideration.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document being shephered by Mankamana Mishra. and responsible AD is  Martin  Vigoureux

(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.

Document reviewed, and it is ready to move forward.  some of the questions were taken to list which have been addressed by authors. and there is no pending comment to be addressed. Had small comment if we want to cover different AFI in this document and agreed with author about current state is in line with existing other mVPN specs. and there would be different document written down to cover how to send source active where source is being learnt using some other means.
Overall document is in good quality to move forward.

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

No , there is no concern with document.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

There is no concern with 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

(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 were disclosed. 

(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?

Yes
(10) 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 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.

None

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Document does not have any specific changes in this area.  No formal review required.

(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 - all normative references are to RFCs.

(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.
No - all normative references are upward.

(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.

Yes publication of this document would update RFC6514. And it has been indicated well in document.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations notes that IANA has already assigned EC and its being registered. 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml

(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.

This document introduces a new Transitive IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community".  IANA has registered subcode 0x20 in the Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-Types registry for this EC.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No sections written in a formal language.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
Yes, type of RFC is indicated in header. It would be going as proposed standard.

(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 defines procedure to remove requirement for MSDP between sites in case of MVPN deployment. and enhances source active routes to carry relevant information.


Working Group Summary:

We had good support for this work. there are many vendors planning to implement this document.  this work removed need for extra protocol for mVPN deployments.

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, YANG 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?

Vendors with mVPN deployment did show interest to implement this document. Since this does not  introduce any new CLI there was noo Yang model consideration.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document being shephered by Mankamana Mishra. and responsible AD is  Martin  Vigoureux

(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.

Document reviewed, and it is ready to move forward.  some of the questions were taken to list which have been addressed by authors. and there is no pending comment to be addressed. Had small comment if we want to cover different AFI in this document and agreed with author about current state is in line with existing other mVPN specs. and there would be different document written down to cover how to send source active where source is being learnt using some other means.
Overall document is in good quality to move forward.

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

No , there is no concern with document.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

There is no concern with 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

(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 were disclosed. 

(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?

Yes
(10) 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 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.

None

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Document does not have any specific changes in this area.  No formal review required.

(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 - all normative references are to RFCs.

(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.
No - all normative references are upward.

(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.

Yes publication of this document would update RFC6514. And it has been indicated well in document.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations notes that IANA has already assigned EC and its being registered. 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml

(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.

This document introduces a new Transitive IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community".  IANA has registered subcode 0x20 in the Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-Types registry for this EC.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No sections written in a formal language.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
Yes, type of RFC is indicated in header. It would be going as proposed standard.

(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 defines procedure to remove requirement for MSDP between sites in case of MVPN deployment. and enhances source active routes to carry relevant information.


Working Group Summary:

We had good support for this work. there are many vendors planning to implement this document.  this work removed need for extra protocol for mVPN deployments.

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, YANG 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?

Vendors with mVPN deployment did show interest to implement this document. Since this does not  introduce any new CLI there was noo Yang model consideration.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document being shephered by Mankamana Mishra. and responsible AD is  Martin  Vigoureux

(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.

Document reviewed, and it is ready to move forward.  some of the questions were taken to list which have been addressed by authors. and there is no pending comment to be addressed.

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

No , there is no concern with document.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

There is no concern with 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

(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 were disclosed. 

(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?

Yes
(10) 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 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.

None

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Document does not have any specific changes in this area.  No formal review required.

(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 - all normative references are to RFCs.

(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.
No - all normative references are upward.

(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.

Yes publication of this document would update RFC6514. And it has been indicated well in document.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations notes that IANA has already assigned EC and its being registered. 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml

(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.

This document introduces a new Transitive IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community".  IANA has registered subcode 0x20 in the Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-Types registry for this EC.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No sections written in a formal language.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
Yes, type of RFC is indicated in header. It would be going as proposed standard.

(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 defines procedure to remove requirement for MSDP between sites in case of MVPN deployment. and enhances source active routes to carry relevant information.


Working Group Summary:

We had good support for this work. there are many vendors planning to implement this document.  this work removed need for extra protocol for mVPN deployments.

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, YANG 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?

Vendors with mVPN deployment did show interest to implement this document. Since this does not  introduce any new CLI there was noo Yang model consideration.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document being shephered by Mankamana Mishra. and responsible AD is  Martin  Vigoureux

(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.
Document reviewed, and it is ready to move forward.  some of the questions were taken to list which have been addressed by authors. and there is no pending comment to be addressed.

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

No , there is no concern with document.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

There is no concern with 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

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

Yes

(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?

Yes
(10) 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 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.

None

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Document does not have any specific changes in this area.  No formal review required.

(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 - all normative references are to RFCs.

(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.
No - all normative references are upward.

(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.

Yes publication of this document would update RFC6514. And it has been indicated well in document.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations notes that IANA has already assigned EC and its being registered. 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml

(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.

This document introduces a new Transitive IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community".  IANA has registered subcode 0x20 in the Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-Types registry for this EC.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No sections written in a formal language.


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Not applicable