(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?
The Draft is classified as Informational and same is captured in the title page
header of the latest version 11. The Draft list out ten different use cases
where the BIER technology play a key role for the efficient multicast data
forwarding. The draft went through different versions addressing the various
use-cases and comments from the BIER WG including Shepherd comments.
(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:
RFC-8279 Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication(BIER) specifies a new
multicast data forwarding architecture. The Draft list out the following use
cases where BIER play a key role for the efficient data forwarding
a. Multicast in L3VPN Networks
b. Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast (BUM) in EVPN
c. IPTV and OTT Services
d. Multi-Service, Converged L3VPN Network
e. Control-Plane Simplification and SDN-Controlled Networks
f. Data Center Virtualization/Overlay
g. Financial Services
h. 4K Broadcast Video Services
i. Distributed Storage Cluster
j. Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Level Multicast
Working Group Summary:
The document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and
there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents
Document Quality:
The document is a stable document and supported for publication in the working
group. The protocol is implemented by various vendors covering various use
cases mentioned in the draft.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Suneesh Babu suneeshbk@gmail.com
Area Director: Alvaro Retana aretana.ietf@gmail.com
(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.
Shepherd reviewed version-10 of the draft and is available @
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/S3H7LVPl3aWHoApBGwTI_H9TZYc/
The authors addressed the comments on 2020-03-04 and updated the current
version.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns
(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.
Not required
(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.
No such 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?
All authors have confirmed IPR disclosures and is captured @
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2822/
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2822/
(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 document went through few rounds of reviews, comments and revisions and
there is consensus in the WG to publish these documents.
(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 appeals.
(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.
No nits found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references correctly documented.
(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?
All normative references are existing RFCs.
(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 downward references that I found.
(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 other RFCs are being updated or obsoleted by this RFC.
(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).
No IANA considerations introduced. The draft is an informational one capturing
various use cases of BIER
(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.
As per Shepherds understanding, no expert level review is required.
(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.
nit tool returns with no errors.
(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?
No Yang Modules