Skip to main content

BIER Ping and Trace
draft-ietf-bier-ping-13

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-27
13 Greg Mirsky New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-13.txt
2024-01-27
13 Greg Mirsky New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Greg Mirsky)
2024-01-27
13 Greg Mirsky Uploaded new revision
2024-01-26
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Will LIU Early OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
12 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2023-11-27
12 Mankamana Mishra


1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad …


1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  It did reach to broad agreement. There was good participation from different members of working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No, there were no controversy

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  Yes, some part of it has been implemented by vendors who support BIER in some form.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  NA

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

  NA

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  NA


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  NA

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, this document is needed as it describes the basic functionality of the protocol. The document has been written clearly and is ready to move forward.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    NA

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Intended Standards Track is the proper type considering it defines a new extension to protocol.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, IPR disclosure checks were done.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Author list has been updated

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    Ready without nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    NA

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    NA

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    NA

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    IANA section does clearly capture the appropriate information.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-07-29
12 Greg Mirsky New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-12.txt
2023-07-29
12 (System) New version approved
2023-07-29
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Pignataro , Greg Mirsky , Mach Chen , Nagendra Nainar , bier-chairs@ietf.org
2023-07-29
12 Greg Mirsky Uploaded new revision
2023-07-28
11 Greg Mirsky New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-11.txt
2023-07-28
11 (System) New version approved
2023-07-28
11 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Pignataro , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen , Nagendra Nainar , Nobo Akiya …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Pignataro , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen , Nagendra Nainar , Nobo Akiya , bier-chairs@ietf.org
2023-07-28
11 Greg Mirsky Uploaded new revision
2023-07-16
10 Tony Przygienda Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared.
2023-07-16
10 Tony Przygienda IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-07-11
10 Mankamana Mishra


1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad …


1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  It did reach to broad agreement. There was good participation from different members of working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  No, there were no controversy

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  Yes, some part of it has been implemented by vendors who support BIER in some form.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  NA

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

  NA

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

  NA


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  NA

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, this document is needed as it describes the basic functionality for protocol. Document has been written clearly and ready to move forward.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    NA

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Intended Standards Track and it is proper type considering it defines new extension to protocol.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes , IPR disclosure check were done.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes, there are more than 5 authors. Chairs need to take call about it .

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    Ready without nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    NA

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    NA

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    NA

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    IANA section does clearly capture the appropriate information.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-19
10 Greg Mirsky New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-10.txt
2023-05-19
10 Greg Mirsky New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Greg Mirsky)
2023-05-19
10 Greg Mirsky Uploaded new revision
2023-05-08
09 Greg Mirsky New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-09.txt
2023-05-08
09 (System) New version approved
2023-05-08
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Pignataro , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen , Nagendra Nainar , Nobo Akiya
2023-05-08
09 Greg Mirsky Uploaded new revision
2023-04-28
08 Dhruv Dhody Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list.
2023-04-22
08 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2023-04-21
08 David Mandelberg Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: David Mandelberg. Sent review to list.
2023-04-20
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg
2023-04-14
08 Brian Haberman Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Brian Haberman. Sent review to list.
2023-04-12
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Will LIU
2023-04-11
08 Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman
2023-04-07
08 Tony Przygienda Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-04-07
08 Tony Przygienda Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-04-07
08 Tony Przygienda Requested Early review by INTDIR
2023-04-07
08 Tony Przygienda Requested Early review by SECDIR
2023-03-06
08 Greg Mirsky New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-08.txt
2023-03-06
08 Greg Mirsky New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Greg Mirsky)
2023-03-06
08 Greg Mirsky Uploaded new revision
2021-01-21
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Pignataro , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen , Nagendra Nainar , Nobo Akiya …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Pignataro , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mach Chen , Nagendra Nainar , Nobo Akiya , bier-chairs@ietf.org
2021-01-21
08 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2020-11-16
07 (System) Document has expired
2020-05-11
07 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-07.txt
2020-05-11
07 (System) New version approved
2020-05-11
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nobo Akiya , Carlos Pignataro , Mach Chen , Greg Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Nagendra Kumar
2020-05-11
07 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2020-05-03
06 (System) Document has expired
2019-10-31
06 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-06.txt
2019-10-31
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Nagendra Kumar)
2019-10-31
06 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2019-10-26
05 (System) Document has expired
2019-08-28
Jasmine Magallanes Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bier-ping
2019-04-24
05 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-05.txt
2019-04-24
05 (System) New version approved
2019-04-24
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Gregory Mirsky , Carlos Pignataro , Nobo Akiya , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng
2019-04-24
05 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2019-04-24
04 (System) Document has expired
2018-10-21
04 Tony Przygienda Notification list changed to mankamana mishra <mankamis@cisco.com>
2018-10-21
04 Tony Przygienda Document shepherd changed to mankamana prasad mishra
2018-10-21
04 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-04.txt
2018-10-21
04 (System) New version approved
2018-10-21
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Carlos Pignataro , Nobo Akiya , Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Carlos Pignataro , Nobo Akiya , Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , bier-chairs@ietf.org
2018-10-21
04 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2018-07-26
03 (System) Document has expired
2018-02-21
03 Greg Shepherd Looking for Doc Shepherd
2018-02-21
03 Greg Shepherd Tag Other - see Comment Log set.
2018-02-21
03 Greg Shepherd IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2018-02-21
03 Greg Shepherd Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-02-01
03 Alia Atlas IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2018-01-22
03 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-03.txt
2018-01-22
03 (System) New version approved
2018-01-22
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Carlos Pignataro , Nobo Akiya , Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng
2018-01-22
03 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2017-07-21
02 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-02.txt
2017-07-21
02 (System) New version approved
2017-07-21
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nagendra Kumar , Carlos Pignataro , Nobo Akiya , Gregory Mirsky , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng
2017-07-21
02 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2017-07-21
01 (System) Document has expired
2017-01-17
01 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-01.txt
2017-01-17
01 (System) New version approved
2017-01-17
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Lianshu Zheng" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Carlos Pignataro" , "Nobo Akiya" , "Gregory Mirsky" …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Lianshu Zheng" , "Nagendra Kumar" , "Carlos Pignataro" , "Nobo Akiya" , "Gregory Mirsky" , bier-chairs@ietf.org
2017-01-17
01 Nagendra Nainar Uploaded new revision
2016-07-19
00 Tony Przygienda This document now replaces draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping instead of None
2016-07-19
00 Nagendra Nainar New version available: draft-ietf-bier-ping-00.txt