OSPFv2 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

[Ballot comment]
(1) The specification of the sub-TLVs still needs some work:

- MT-ID: What should a receiver do if the MT-ID is in the 128-255 range?

- "BFR-id...If the BFR is not locally configured with a valid BFR-id, the value of this field is set to invalid BFR-id per [RFC8279]."  I looked in rfc8279 for the text about "invalid BFR-id", but found this instead: "The value 0 is not a legal BFR-id."  I assume that in this case "invalid" is the same as "not legal".  It would be nice to be consistent.

- "When such duplication is detected all BFRs advertising duplicates MUST be treated as if they did not advertise a valid BFR-id."  How are BFRs that advertise an invalid BFR-id treated?

- What should a receiver do if the BSL is set to a value not supported in rfc8296?

- "Label ranges within all BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap.  If the overlap is detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not advertise any BIER sub-TLVs."  If an overlap is detected, the result is that *all* BFRs (advertising the overlap) are treated as if the BIER sub-TLV was not advertised, right?  The text is not clear as to whether the result applies to all or just the BFR that advertised last (and resulted in the detection happening).

- "All advertised labels MUST be valid..."  What is a "valid" label?

- For the IPA field: "Values are defined in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry."  Please add a reference to this registry.

(2) Security Considerations

- I support Eric's DISCUSS.  It seems to me that an attacker could simply advertise duplicate BFR-IDs or overlapping label ranges and have a significant impact on the network.

(3) IANA Considerations

Section 2.2: "The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the BIER Sub-TLV."  However, the type for this sub-sub-TLV is allocated from the OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLV registry...and not from a new registry for sub-TLVs for the BIER Sub-TLV.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

[Ballot comment]

>      BAR: Single octet BIER Algorithm. 0 is the only supported value
>      defined in this document and represents Shortest Path First (SPF)
>      algorithm based on IGP link metric.  This is the standard shortest
>      path algorithm as computed by the OSPF protocol.  Other values may
>      be defined in the future.

I have the same comment regarding BAR as I made for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions: I expected to find a registry for BAR in the IANA section. Does some other document establish this registry? If so, is 0 already registered? If "no" and "no", then this document needs to do both. If "yes" and "no", then this document need to register "0". If "yes" and "yes", then the phrase "in this document" needs to be replaced by "in [RFCxxxx]".

----------

Typically, for reserved fields, specifications ensure the future ability to use the fields in a backwards-compatible way by requiring such fields to be a known value (typically zero) on transmission, and requiring them to be ignored on reception. Please consider doing this.

----------

Please update your example text in section 2.3 to use IPv6 addresses instead of (or in addition to) IPv4 addresses. See https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ for guidance.

----------

Section 4:

>  The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended
>  Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684].

I see only two requests rather than three.

----------

I also have a small, general cosmetic nit: the bit numbers in the diagrams appear to be shifted to the left by one space; e.g.:

  0                  1                  2                  3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Typically, these types of diagrams number the "-" segments (which represent bits) rather than the "+" segments (which represent the divisions between bits).

[Ballot comment]
I support Ekr's DISCUSS

§1: The document has a few lowercase instances of "must" and "should". Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174.

[Ballot discuss]
* Section 2.2 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV

This should be straightforward to fix but it is not clear if the label range is allowed to wrap around (overflow) or not past the 20 bit space. e.g. is a Label=2^20-X with a MSI of X or larger legal? I was hoping that RFC8296 would have covered this but unfortunately it leaves it to this document (and the IS-IS document) to specify.

[Ballot comment]
* Section 2.1. BIER Sub-TLV

- No handling specified for the Reserved field in this sub-TLV. Assuming, set to zero and ignore on receipt? Please specify.

- I think there might be an IANA registry required for the "BIER Algorithm" to keep track of new algorithms (if any)

- typo: s/BRF/BFR/

* Section 2.2 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV

"Max SI : A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier (section 1 of [RFC8296])"

There is no definition for "Maximum Set Identifier" in RFC8296. Did you just mean "Set Identifier"? If not, can you clarify what you mean?

[Ballot comment]
Since this adds an extension to OSPF, I think the security considerations may be adequate.  I see why the BIER specific RFC references were not added, but it may be helpful with framing in the security considerations section when this OSPF extension is used.

[Ballot comment]
I have a few questions and some nits.
1: The shepherd report says that the AD has noted a large number of authors - was there discussion to change this?

2: Related: The shepherd writeup says: "Didn’t see IPR disclosures on the alias archive. Emailed the authors, got responses from 2." -- this means that 5 hadn't responded. Trusting AD to have checked this.

3: Nit: " Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol for its operation" -- I think that "neither" can be removed.

4: Nit: Section 1:    "BIER architecture requires routers" -> "The BIER architecture requires routers"

5: Section 2.1: "advertised in the BIER sub-TLV by other BFRs is in conflict with the association locally configured on the receiving router, the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored." -- must be ignored and reported, or just ignored?

6: Section 3.  Security Considerations
"Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures."
  -- I am not a security AD, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm predicting a DISCUSS on this -- it seems inadequate...

[Ballot discuss]
Document: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12.txt

I have not yet reviewed this document in detail:

  Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV
  permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures.

This is not an adequate security considerations section. What is your
threat model? What attacks are possible? What are not? It may be the
case that this is all covered in other documents, and you just need to
point to them, but the reader doesn't know that, so this needs to be
documented. Adam Montville's SECDIR review which makes some of the
same points and lists a few specific items to examine.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

In the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/

The following temporary assignments will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 9
Description: BIER Sub-TLV

Value: 10
Description: BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV

IANA Question --> There is also a temporary registration in that same registry as follows:

Value: 11
Description: BIER Tree Type Sub-TLV

If the authors' intent was to also make this temporary registration permanent, then the IANA Considerations section of the current document should be changed to reflect this.

The IANA Services 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 only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

[Ballot comment]
4.  IANA Considerations

  The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended

I only see 2 allocations, not 3:

  Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684].

      BIER Sub-TLV: 9

      BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 10

[Ballot comment]
4.  IANA Considerations

  The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended

I only see 2 allocations, not 2:

  Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684].

      BIER Sub-TLV: 9

      BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 10

[Ballot comment]
1) From the shepherd write-up „The main comment I have on the document is that it should be renamed to "OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER”. -> I agree.

2) Also from the shepherd write-up: „Didn’t see IPR disclosures on the alias archive. Emailed the authors, got responses from 2.“ -> Did the others confirm by now?

3) Please use rfc8174 boilerplate.

4) Editorial nit (that will also be cought by the RFC editor): the reference to RFC2328 should be removed from the abstract and added in the Intro.

5) Editorial comment: in section 2.2: Wouldn’t it makes sense to also display the 4 reserved bits at the end of the Label in the diagram? Also wondering why those bits have not been used for the Bit String Length but that’s not important…

6) maybe: s/specified in section 2 of [RFC8296]/specified in section 2.1.2 of [RFC8296]/

7) The document should maybe provide further guidance on how the stated goal in the security considerations section could be achieved.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bier@ietf.org, Reshad Rahman , akatlas@gmail.com, rrahman@cisco.com, draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPF Extensions for BIER) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG
(bier) to consider the following document: - 'OSPF Extensions for BIER'
  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 2018-02-22. 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


  Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
  provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
  requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow
  state.  Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol
  for its operation.  A multicast data packet enters a BIER domain at a
  "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at
  one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs).  The BFIR router
  adds a BIER header to the packet.  Such header contains a bit-string
  in which each bit represents exactly one BFER to forward the packet
  to.  The set of BFERs to which the multicast packet needs to be
  forwarded is expressed by the according set of bits set in BIER
  packet header.

  This document describes the OSPF protocol extension required for BIER
  with MPLS encapsulation.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/ballot/


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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8296: Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-MPLS Networks (Experimental - IETF stream)
    rfc8279: Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) (Experimental - IETF stream)

draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10 shepherd write-up.

: 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 24 February 2012.
:
: (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. Yes it is indicated in 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 describes the OSPFv2 protocol extension for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) with MPLS encapsulation.

: Working Group Summary

This document was presented and discussed at IETF91, IETF92 and IETF95.
Discussions on whether this belongs to OSPF WG, AD decided that it belongs in BIER WG. There were some questions on whether it should be Experimental track, there was consensus that Standards Track is correct. There were discussions on whether there was a mismatch with an example in the MPLS encapsulation draft, that was resolved by clarifying the text in that draft. The discussions on IPv6 support resulted in the decision to do a separate document for OSPFv3 BIER Extensions. There is one outstanding discussion on the BIER alias regarding allowing 0 for the label range size.

: Document Quality
Major vendors on the author list have working implementations or are working on the implementation of the extensions. Acee Lindem has done a thorough review of the document. Alias Atlas has done an early AD review.
The main comment I have on the document is that it should be renamed to "OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER”.

: Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Reshad Rahman. The Responsible Area Director is 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.
The document shepherd has reviewed the email chains and verified that all comments have been addressed appropriately. The document shepherd has also reviewed the changes in each revision as the document has progressed through the WG.

: (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
: breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
None.

: (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.
Review from OSPF WG was done by Acee Lindem.

: (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.
The AD has already pointed out the large number of authors and has suggested that the number be reduced.

: (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.
Didn’t see IPR disclosures on the alias archive. Emailed the authors, got responses from 2.

: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
: If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
: disclosures.
None.

: (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? 
Consensus appears to be very solid. Whole WG is on board.

: (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
: Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
: thorough.

idnits 2.15.01

/tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt:
/tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(331): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 47; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771.
/tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(341): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 7; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771.
/tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(342): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 55; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771.
/tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(346): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 35; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771.
/tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(347): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 46; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771.
/tmp/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-10.txt(351): Found possible IPv4 address '192.0.0.1' in position 21; this doesn't match the suggested documentation address ranges specified in RFC 6890 (or successor): blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2), and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3); or the 233.252.0.0/24 (MCAST-TEST-NET) example multicast address range specified in RFC 5771.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 6 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
    match the current year

  -- The document date (December 4, 2017) is 59 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7120' is defined on line 339, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
    '[RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Cod...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 348, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
    '[RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Wri...'

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-architecture has been published as
    RFC 8279

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft:
    draft-ietf-bier-architecture (ref. 'I-D.ietf-bier-architecture')

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation has been
    published as RFC 8296

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft:
    draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation (ref.
    'I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation')


    Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

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

: (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.
See idnits in (11)

: (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.
No.

: (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).
The IANA Considerations refers to RFC 7684 where is defined the registry for OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLV.
There has been early/temporary allocation of codepoints for the new sub-TLVs:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-sub-tlvs
Value 11 is not needed anymore since BIER Tree type sub-TLV has been removed.

: (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.
N/A

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda , bier-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Sam Aldrin , Andrew Dolganow , Zhaohui Zhang , IJsbrand Wijnands , Peter Psenak , Tony Przygienda , bier-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Tony Przygienda" , "Andrew Dolganow" , "IJsbrand Wijnands" , "Sam Aldrin" , "Peter Psenak" , bier-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Tony Przygienda" , "Andrew Dolganow" , "IJsbrand Wijnands" , "Sam Aldrin" , "Peter Psenak" , bier-chairs@ietf.org