Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?


draft-ietf-bier-te-arch is proposed Standard track.

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This is indicated on the title page. This document defines BIER tree engineering mechanism by changing the semantics of bit position that has been defined in RFC 8279, which provides traffic steering within BIER forwarding architecture.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

(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.
As the result of the WG discussion, “Name explanation” part is added to the document, which will be removed in the next version.

Document Quality:

After full discussions and multiple revisions, there is solid consensus for this document in WG. It is ready for publication . 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

(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 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.

(4) 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.

(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 has no 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?

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

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

There is no IPR-related discussion.

(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 draft is very solid.

(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.)

Negative.

(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.

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).

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

Not relevant.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes the document is split to normative and informative references. Documents that are normative references are in a clear state (no pending or downrevs).

(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).

This document requests no action by IANA.

(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.

Not relevant.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

Not relevant.

(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?

Not relevant.

（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.

（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.