Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)
draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-12-10 |
09 | Greg Shepherd | (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 … (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? draft-ietf-bier-te-arch is Proposed Standard. This is indicated on the title page. (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 draft presents a stateless path steering mechanism for BIER, called BIER TE (Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication). Bitstring sematic of BIER-TE is different from BIER defined in RFC 8279, which indicates adjacencies, but it could reuse the forwarding engine of BIER. The BIFT of each BFR only contains the BPs that are adjacent to the BFR in BIER-TE topology. BIER-TE doesn’t depend on any IGP protocols as routing underlay. Working Group Summary The name of the mechanism defined in the draft has been discussed during last call, which was changed from “BIER traffic engineering” to “BIER tree engineering”, considering that it only covers the path steering function in the overall solution of traffic engineering. Any BIER traffic engineering mechanism could use this mechanism. Document Quality After full discussions and multiple revisions, there is solid consensus for this document in WG. It is ready for adoption. No implementation was yet announced in the BIER WG. No formal language is used in the document (there is some informal pseudo-code without formal verification tools). No aspects of the document required expert review. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Geng Xuesong is the shepherd and Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director 1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Geng Xuesong, Yes she has reviewed the version 8 of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch. Her concerns where addressed by the authors in version 9. She believes this version is now ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes. See acknowledgement section for list of key reviewers, including Lou Berger, TEAS chair. This document has been reviewed, and there is no concern about depth or breadth about the previous reviews.. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The shepherd has no concerns. The Shepherd received confirmation from all authors that all IPR they are aware of has been disclosed to the IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-bier-te-arch (1.e) 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 draft is very solid. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) Negative. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. Yes, the shepherd has verified idnits. Only warnings where found by the tools which have been identified to be issues of the idnits tools, not of the document. The intend status of the document is correctly indicated, formal review criteria are met (are not applicable). (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes the document is split to normative and informative references. Documents that are normative references are in a clear state (no pending or downrevs). (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? This document requests no action by IANA. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No applicable. |
2020-12-10 |
09 | Greg Shepherd | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2020-12-10 |
09 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2020-12-10 |
09 | Greg Shepherd | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-12-10 |
09 | Greg Shepherd | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-12-08 |
09 | Greg Shepherd | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2020-11-03 |
09 | Xuesong Geng | (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 … (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? draft-ietf-bier-te-arch is Proposed Standard. This is indicated on the title page. (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 draft presents a stateless path steering mechanism for BIER, called BIER TE (Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication). Bitstring sematic of BIER-TE is different from BIER defined in RFC 8279, which indicates adjacencies, but it could reuse the forwarding engine of BIER. The BIFT of each BFR only contains the BPs that are adjacent to the BFR in BIER-TE topology. BIER-TE doesn’t depend on any IGP protocols as routing underlay. Working Group Summary The name of the mechanism defined in the draft has been discussed during last call, which was changed from “BIER traffic engineering” to “BIER tree engineering”, considering that it only covers the path steering function in the overall solution of traffic engineering. Any BIER traffic engineering mechanism could use this mechanism. Document Quality After full discussions and multiple revisions, there is solid consensus for this document in WG. It is ready for adoption. No implementation was yet announced in the BIER WG. No formal language is used in the document (there is some informal pseudo-code without formal verification tools). No aspects of the document required expert review. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Geng Xuesong is the shepherd and Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director 1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Geng Xuesong, Yes she has reviewed the version 8 of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch. Her concerns where addressed by the authors in version 9. She believes this version is now ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes. See acknowledgement section for list of key reviewers, including Lou Berger, TEAS chair. This document has been reviewed, and there is no concern about depth or breadth about the previous reviews.. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The shepherd has no concerns. The Shepherd received confirmation from all authors that all IPR they are aware of has been disclosed to the IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-bier-te-arch (1.e) 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 draft is very solid. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) Negative. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. Yes, the shepherd has verified idnits. Only warnings where found by the tools which have been identified to be issues of the idnits tools, not of the document. The intend status of the document is correctly indicated, formal review criteria are met (are not applicable). (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes the document is split to normative and informative references. Documents that are normative references are in a clear state (no pending or downrevs). (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? This document requests no action by IANA. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No applicable. |
2020-10-30 |
09 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-09.txt |
2020-10-30 |
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Toerless Eckert) |
2020-10-30 |
09 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-13 |
08 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-08.txt |
2020-07-13 |
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-13 |
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, bier-chairs@ietf.org, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>, Gregory Cauchie <gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr> |
2020-07-13 |
08 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-13 |
07 | Greg Shepherd | Notification list changed to Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com> |
2020-07-13 |
07 | Greg Shepherd | Document shepherd changed to Xuesong Geng |
2020-03-09 |
07 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-07.txt |
2020-03-09 |
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-09 |
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gregory Cauchie <gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr>, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>, bier-chairs@ietf.org, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de> |
2020-03-09 |
07 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-19 |
06 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-06.txt |
2020-02-19 |
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-19 |
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Gregory Cauchie <gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr>, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>, bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2020-02-19 |
06 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-01 |
05 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-05.txt |
2019-11-01 |
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Toerless Eckert) |
2019-11-01 |
05 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-23 |
04 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-04.txt |
2019-10-23 |
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-23 |
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Gregory Cauchie <gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr>, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>, bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-10-23 |
04 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-20 |
03 | Tony Przygienda | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-07-08 |
03 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt |
2019-07-08 |
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08 |
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Gregory Cauchie <gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr>, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>, Wolfgang Braun <wolfgang.braun@uni-tuebingen.de>, bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-07-08 |
03 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-30 |
02 | Greg Shepherd | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-05-30 |
02 | Greg Shepherd | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-05-14 |
02 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt |
2019-05-14 |
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-14 |
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Gregory Cauchie <gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr>, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>, Wolfgang Braun <wolfgang.braun@uni-tuebingen.de>, bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-05-14 |
02 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-26 |
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-10-23 |
01 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-01.txt |
2018-10-23 |
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-23 |
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, Gregory Cauchie <gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr>, Michael Menth <menth@uni-tuebingen.de>, Wolfgang Braun <wolfgang.braun@uni-tuebingen.de>, bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-10-23 |
01 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-27 |
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-03-22 |
00 | Lou Berger | Added to session: IETF-101: detnet Fri-0930 |
2018-01-23 |
00 | Greg Shepherd | This document now replaces draft-eckert-bier-te-arch instead of None |
2018-01-23 |
00 | Toerless Eckert | New version available: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-00.txt |
2018-01-23 |
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-01-23 |
00 | Toerless Eckert | Set submitter to "Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>", replaces to draft-eckert-bier-te-arch and sent approval email to group chairs: bier-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-01-23 |
00 | Toerless Eckert | Uploaded new revision |