Document Action: 'Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-21.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Wed, 03 December 2025 18:11 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-21.txt)
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <176478546112.4168619.4222936637188511147@dt-datatracker-5bd94c585b-wk4l4>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 10:11:01 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: T62MRENT5Z2WYNEAESFUNSXIS4RDWPNT
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bier-chairs@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/AFQWmO92q4h-T8k2GfdWSYZOoeI>

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit
Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer'
(draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-21.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan
Talaulikar.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements/

Technical Summary

This document describes a list of functional requirements toward
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER) layer of a network.

Working Group Summary

Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

No controversy on any part of the work.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?

There are already implementations that follow the requirements described in the draft. The document uses BCP14-style wording to clearly express those requirements. The goal is to make sure that when BIER OAM implementations claim to follow the draft, they meet the requirements exactly as written in Section 2.

Personnel

The Document Shepherd for this document is Hooman Bidgoli. The
Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

Document Action: 'Operations, Administration and … The IESG