Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector

(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 is clearly stated and is the agreed upon status between
the WG, chairs and AD.

(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:
For some applications, it might be useful to have a way to specify the explicit
path along which the PIM join is propagated. This document defines a new
Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV to build multicast trees via an
explicit path sent in the PIM join.

Working Group Summary:

There was several comments on the mailing list during the working group last
call. All comments have been addressed in this latest draft. The AD has given
this draft a thorough review and made several comments including regarding
Security. The security section has been updated to satisfy his comments. We
have complete consensus for progressing this document.

Document Quality:

At least one vendor (Cisco) has indicted that they will implement the
functionality documented in this draft.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mike McBride, PIM WG co-chair. Alvaro Retana is the 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.

Mike McBride, PIM WG Co-Chair, is the document Shepherd. After thorough review
by the working group, the chairs, and the AD (Alvaro), the document is ready
for publication. My Co-Chair, Stig Venaas, has also reviewed the document and
agrees that the document is ready for publication.

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

No, there were several comments made during the WGLC and all have been
addressed.

(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.

I have no concerns about this document.

(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?

Authors have confirmed no IPR

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

No IPR

(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 consensus is solid. We had many individuals, from a variety of companies,
indicate their support and offered comments.

(10) 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.

(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 additional nits found.

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

Not Applicable

(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.

Publication of this document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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 5226).

A new attribute type from the PIM Join Attribute Types registry needs to be
assigned by IANA for the Explicit RPF Vector attribute. The proposed value is 4.

(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.

No new registry, only a new attribute type from an existing registry

(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.

Not Applicable
Back