Fwd: Please publish draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

FYI. Ben


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]>
> Date: 24 January 2012 18:51:02 GMT
> To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01
> 
> Stewart,
> 
> I've included the document shepherd write up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01 below. I will be the document shepherd.
> 
> Thanks
> ben
> 
> Stewart,
> 
> I've included the document shepherd write up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-00 below. I will be the shepherd for this document.
> 
> Thanks
> Ben
> 
> 
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
> 
> (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? 
> 
> Ben Niven-Jenkins is the Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards. I have personally reviewed the -01 version of the document and believe that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication as a Standards Track RFC.
> 
> (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?  
> 
> The -00 version of the document passed the L3VPN WG Last Call in December 2011 and no technical concerns were raised during the Last Call.
> 
> (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. 
> 
> No concerns and no IPR disclosures have been filed.
> 
> (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?   
> 
> There were no objections during the WG Last Call on the document, and the document was produced by combining two individual drafts authored by a good proportion of the active WG participants.
> 
> (1.f) 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 
>    entered into the ID Tracker.) 
> 
> No, not to my knowledge.
> 
> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
>    document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
>    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? 
> 
> The idnits tool reports no issues. There are no MIB or other elements in the document that would warrant review. As such, I have no concerns here.
> 
> (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]. 
> 
> The document does not informatively reference any other document and therefore there is just a Normative References section. All normative references are either to published RFCs or to Internet-Drafts in the RFC-Editor's queue. There are no downward references.
> 
> 
> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
>    consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the 
>    document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
>    conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
>    can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 
> 
> The document contains an IANA Considerations section but contains no actions on 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 section of this document is written in a formal language.
> 
> (1.k) 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 
>    Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
>    and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
>    an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
>    or introduction. 
> 
> In "Multicast Virtual Private Networks" (MVPNs), customer multicast flows are carried in "tunnels" through a service provider's network. The base specifications for MVPN define BGP multicast VPN "auto-discovery" routes, and specify how to use an auto-discovery route to advertise the fact that an individual customer multicast flow is being carried in a particular tunnel.
> 
> However, those specifications do not provide a way to specify, in a single such route, that multiple customer flows are being carried in a single tunnel. Those specifications also do not provide a way to advertise that a particular tunnel is to be used by default to carry all customer flows, except in the case where that tunnel is joined by all the provider edge routers of the MVPN.
> 
> This document eliminates these restrictions by specifying the use of "wildcard" elements in the customer flow identifiers.  With wildcard elements, a single auto-discovery route can refer to multiple customer flows, or even to all customer flows.
> 
> Working Group Summary 
>    Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
>    example, was there controversy about particular points or 
>    were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
>    rough? 
> 
> This document is a product of L3VPN WG. There were no technical comments on the document during the WG Last Call, which was completed in December 2011.
> 
> Document Quality 
>    Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
> 
> I am not aware of any existing implementations but I have not actively tried to discover if any implementation exist.
> 
>    Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
>    to implement the specification?
> 
> I do not know. 
> 
>    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?
> 
> Not to the best of my knowledge.
> 
>    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?
> 
> No such review was conducted as it was not considered necessary.