Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN): Using Bidirectional P-Tunnels
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-07-14
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-06-29
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-06-08
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-04-27
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-04-27
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-04-27
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-04-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2015-04-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-04-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-04-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-04-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-04-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-04-26
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-04-23
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2015-04-23
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-04-23
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-04-23
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I am balloting no-obj on the premise that folks with more MPLS expertise have performed an in-depth review of this work. |
2015-04-23
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-04-22
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-04-22
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-04-22
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-04-21
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-04-21
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-04-21
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-04-21
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The remaining comment from Elwyn's Gen-ART review would be worthwhile one to address, in my opinion. |
2015-04-21
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-04-20
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-04-09
|
04 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2015-04-08
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-04-08
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-23 |
2015-04-08
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-04-08
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-04-03
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2015-04-02
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-04-02
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-03-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2015-03-24
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Record from Yes |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09 |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-03-23
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Eric Rosen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-03-23
|
04 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-04.txt |
2015-03-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Simon Josefsson. |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | New revision for RTG-Dir and GenArt reviews |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-03-18
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-03-17
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. |
2015-03-17
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-03-17
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here], which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here], which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-03-16
|
03 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2015-03-11
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2015-03-11
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2015-03-05
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Simon Josefsson |
2015-03-05
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Simon Josefsson |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Bruno Decraene was rejected |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (MVPN: Using Bidirectional P-Tunnels) to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (MVPN: Using Bidirectional P-Tunnels) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled Services WG (bess) to consider the following document: - 'MVPN: Using Bidirectional P-Tunnels' 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 2015-03-18. 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 A set of prior RFCs specify procedures for supporting multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. These procedures allow customer multicast data to travel across a service provider's backbone network through a set of multicast tunnels. The tunnels are advertised in certain BGP multicast "auto-discovery" routes, by means of a BGP attribute known as the "Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute". Encodings have been defined that allow the PMSI Tunnel attribute to identify bidirectional (multipoint-to-multipoint) multicast distribution trees. However, the prior RFCs do not provide all the necessary procedures for using bidirectional tunnels to support multicast VPNs. This document updates RFCs 6513, 6514 and 6625 by specifying those procedures. In particular, it specifies the procedures for assigning customer multicast flows (unidirectional or bidirectional) to specific bidirectional tunnels in the provider backbone, for advertising such assignments, and for determining which flows have been assigned to which tunnels. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2405/ |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | AD review ==== I am going to start IETF last call for this document. I just wanted to say Thanks! It is exceptionally readable -- … AD review ==== I am going to start IETF last call for this document. I just wanted to say Thanks! It is exceptionally readable -- I approach mcast documents with a certain amount of trepidation, but I didn't find anything in this document that wasn't perfectly clear. Good job! |
2015-02-23
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-02-19
|
03 | Thomas Morin | (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? Targeted RFC type is "Standard Track", as indicated in the title page header. This is appropriate given the content of the document which specifies a new protocol and corresponding procedures. (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 A set of prior RFCs specify procedures for supporting multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. These procedures allow customer multicast data to travel across a service provider's backbone network through a set of multicast tunnels. [...] However, the prior RFCs do not provide all the necessary procedures for using bidirectional tunnels to support multicast VPNs. This document updates RFCs 6513 and 6625 by specifying those procedures. [...] Working Group Summary The consensus for adoption back in 2011 was rough, with a few contributors disagreeing on the scope that bidir P-tunnels should apply to. This debate has settled down a long time ago and the document has evolved since; no disagreement was expressed in the last years, nor during the last calls. Document Quality The document is believe to be of good quality by the shepherd. It can be noted that it was written by a co-autor of the base mVPN specs based on an understanding of underspecified areas, which are now addressed. It has been indicated that Cisco has implemented the two main methods described by these specs, the Flat Partitioned Method (with MP2MP LSPs) and the Unpartitioned method (with MP2MP LSPs and also with BIDIR-PIM). The document had two thorough reviews (by a WG contributor and by the shepherd), leading to substantive changes in the document. Personnel Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has also done a thorough review of the document leading to modifications that are already incorporated, and believes that the document is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concern. In particular, a WG contributor which is not a co-author has done a thorough review of the document leading to some change. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have shared with the main author my view that the document (in particular section 1.2.2) would be better if it would factually state that these specs come as additional tools to bring improvements that are also addressed, although differently, in base specifications; but we didn't reach a conclusion on changes to address my comment. (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, one late disclosure was filled related to IPR of some of the co-authors, after WGLC, which lead WG chairs to do a second last call to offer the WG the opportunity to express a revised position on the draft. No objection to proceed was heard. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The consensus represent a small subset of interested contributors, additionally to the group of authors. It is symptomatic of the high specificity and technicity of the topic (multicast in VPNs), and should not, in itself be regarded as a sign of lack of relevance of the specifications. (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. Idnits complains that "The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?", but I found the corresponding text ok. (other idnits issues were resolved during shepherd review) (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. No. (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). (no IANA action needed) (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. (no IANA action needed) (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 |
2015-02-19
|
03 | Thomas Morin | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2015-02-19
|
03 | Thomas Morin | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-02-19
|
03 | Thomas Morin | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-02-19
|
03 | Thomas Morin | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2015-02-19
|
03 | Thomas Morin | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-02-19
|
03 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-03.txt |
2015-02-18
|
02 | Thomas Morin | Changed document writeup |
2015-01-19
|
02 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-02.txt |
2015-01-15
|
01 | Thomas Morin | Changed document writeup |
2014-12-22
|
01 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-01.txt |
2014-12-02
|
00 | Thomas Morin | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2014-11-21
|
00 | Thomas Morin | Notification list changed to "Thomas Morin" <thomas.morin@orange.com> |
2014-11-21
|
00 | Thomas Morin | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Morin |
2014-11-20
|
00 | Thomas Morin | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2014-11-20
|
00 | Thomas Morin | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-11-20
|
00 | Thomas Morin | This document now replaces draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir instead of None |
2014-11-18
|
00 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-00.txt |