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