OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07

Was agreed with bier chairs that this would be sent to LSR for a final check - awaiting this before this document moves forward (This was prompted by the review from Adrian Farrel)

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about the action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

In the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs registry on the Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/

two new Sub-TLVs are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: BIER Sub-TLV
L2BM:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV
L2BM:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should be the entries for the L2BM column for these two new registrations? The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV.

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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-07-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, bier-chairs@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions@ietf.org, huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPFv3 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: - 'OSPFv3 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-07-11. 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.  BIER architecture uses MPLS or other encapsulation to steer
  the multicast traffic towards the receivers.

  This document describes the OSPFv3 protocol extensions required for
  BIER with MPLS encapsulation.  Support for other encapsulation types
  is outside the scope of this document.  The use of multiple
  encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions/



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

draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07 shepherd write-up

(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.
This document defines extensions to OSPFv3.
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 OSPFv3 protocol extensions required for
BIER with MPLS encapsulation.  Support for other encapsulation types
is outside the scope of this document.  The use of multiple
encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document.

    Working Group Summary

There is a solid consensus for this document in both the WG LC
and adoption call.

    Document Quality

There is a solid consensus for this document in the WG. It is ready
for publication. No implementation is announced in the WG. No formal
language is used in the document. No aspects of the document required
expert review. Two OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs need IETF Review or
IESG Approval.

    Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Huaimo Chen.
The Responsible Area Director is Andrew Alston.

(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 reviewed version 7 of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions
and the emails in the mailing list.
The shepherd believes that this version is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

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

No.

(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.

The shepherd does not have any concerns.

(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?

There is not any IPR disclosure.
The shepherd emailed the authors and got the responses from all 3 authors.

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

No.

(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 WG consensus for this document is very solid. 
The WG as a whole.

(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.

No nits found (see results below).
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
idnits 2.17.1

draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07.txt:

  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 :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

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

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

  == 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?

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).
  -- The document date (30 November 2022) is 123 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)

    No issues found here.

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

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 (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 8126).

The document requests two new allocations from the
"OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry defined in [RFC8362].
These allocations need IETF Review or IESG Approval.

(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.

(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?
N/A.

draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07 shepherd write-up

(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.
This document defines extensions to OSPFv3.
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 OSPFv3 protocol extensions required for
BIER with MPLS encapsulation.  Support for other encapsulation types
is outside the scope of this document.  The use of multiple
encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document.

    Working Group Summary

There is a solid consensus for this document in both the WG LC
and adoption call.

    Document Quality

There is a solid consensus for this document in the WG. It is ready
for publication. No implementation is announced in the WG. No formal
language is used in the document. No aspects of the document required
expert review. Two OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs need IETF Review or
IESG Approval.

    Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Huaimo Chen.
The Responsible Area Director is Andrew Alston.

(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 reviewed version 7 of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions
and the emails in the mailing list.
The shepherd believes that this version is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

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

No.

(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.

The shepherd thinks that the document should be reviewed by a LSR
chair.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns.

(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?

There is not any IPR disclosure.
The shepherd emailed the authors and 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.

No.

(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 WG consensus for this document is very solid. 
The WG as a whole.

(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.

No nits found (see results below).
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
idnits 2.17.1

draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07.txt:

  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 :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

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

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

  == 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?

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).
  -- The document date (30 November 2022) is 123 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)

    No issues found here.

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

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 8126).

The document requests two new allocations from the
"OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry defined in [RFC8362].
These allocations need IETF Review or IESG Approval.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
    futur 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.

(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?
N/A.

(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.
This document defines extensions to OSPFv3.
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 OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocol extensions
required for BIER with MPLS encapsulation [RFC8296]. Support for
other encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document. The
use of multiple encapsulation types is outside the scope of this
document.

    Working Group Summary

There is a solid consensus for this document in both the WG LC
and adoption call.

    Document Quality

There is a solid consensus for this document in the WG. It is ready
for publication. No implementation is announced in the WG. No formal
language is used in the document. No aspects of the document required
expert review. Two OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs need IETF Review or
IESG Approval.

    Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Huaimo Chen.
The Responsible Area Director is Alvaro Retana.

(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 reviewed version 5 of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions
and the emails in the mailing list.
The shepherd believes that this version is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

The shepherd has some editorial comments below:
a. In the end of section 1. Introduction,
    "as described in [RFC2119]." should be
    "as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when,
    they appear in all capitals, as shown here."
b. In section 4. IANA Considerations, the first sentence,
  "sub-TLV" should be "Sub-TLVs"
  (to be consistent with the name of registry).

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

No.

(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.

The shepherd thinks that the document should be reviewed by a LSR
chair.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns.

(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?

There is not any IPR disclosure.
The shepherd emailed the authors and got two responses.

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

No.

(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 WG consensus for this document is very solid. 
The WG as a whole.

(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.

The Document Shepherd has found Two nits.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8362], [RFC8296]), which
    it shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
    documents in question.

  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: 'RFC5340' is defined on line 385, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 (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 8126).

The document requests two new allocations from the
"OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry defined in [RFC8362].
These allocations need IETF Review or IESG Approval.

(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.

(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?
N/A.