Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-11-18
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-11-10
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-11-10
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.shepherd@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-09-29
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-09-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-09-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-09-25
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-09-23
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-09-23
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-09-23
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-09-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-09-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-09-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-09-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-09-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-09-23
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-09-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-09-17
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-09-16
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-09-16
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-09-16
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-09-16
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-09-16
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-09-16
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Section 4.3 says: "The mechanism defined here MUST NOT be used for other forms of grouping unless and until those forms … [Ballot comment] Section 4.3 says: "The mechanism defined here MUST NOT be used for other forms of grouping unless and until those forms are defined and documented in Recommendations published by the ITU-T." Perhaps I am being too paranoid, but would it be good enough to say "unless and until those forms are standardized" or something more generic, so that in the event that the ITU-T gets out of the grid definition business some time in the far away future we don't have to update this spec? |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Is there a reason why sections 4.1, 8.1, and 8.2 are telling IANA what values to use in those registries? Is it due … [Ballot comment] Is there a reason why sections 4.1, 8.1, and 8.2 are telling IANA what values to use in those registries? Is it due to the implementation described in section 6.1 using those values? |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-09-11
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2015-09-11
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-09-11
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-09-10
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Paul Wouters. |
2015-09-10
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-09-10
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-09-09
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-17 |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-09-09
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-09-09
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-09-01
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-09-01
|
04 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the grid subregistry of the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/ a new grid entry will be registered at follows: Value: [ TBD-at=Registration ] Grid: ITU-T Flex Reference: [ RfC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors have suggested the value 3 for this entry. Second, in the DWDM Channel Spacing subregistry also in the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/ a new channel spacing will be registered at follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Channel Spacing (GHz): 6.25 Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 5 for this entry. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2015-09-01
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2015-09-01
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2015-08-27
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-08-27
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-08-27
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Wouters |
2015-08-27
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Wouters |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract GMPLS supports the description of optical switching by identifying entries in fixed lists of switchable wavelengths (called grids) through the encoding of lambda labels. Work within the ITU-T Study Group 15 has defined a finer granularity grid, and the facility to flexibly select different widths of spectrum from the grid. This document defines a new GMPLS lambda label format to support this flexi-grid. This document updates RFC 3471 and RFC 6205 by introducing a new label format. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2015-08-26
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-07-28
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.shepherd@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label@ietf.org from "Daniele Ceccarelli" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> |
2015-07-27
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04.txt > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, > Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? … Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04.txt > (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? This document is requested for publication as a Proposed Standard document. This is appropriate because the document defines the encoding of GMPLS labels for flexible grid lambda switching capable devices. This track is noted in the document header. > (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: GMPLS supports the description of optical switching by identifying entries in fixed lists of switchable wavelengths (called grids) through the encoding of lambda labels. Work within the ITU-T Study Group 15 has defined a finer granularity grid, and the facility to flexibly select different widths of spectrum from the grid. This document defines a new GMPLS lambda label format to support this flexi-grid. This document updates RFC 3471 and RFC 6205 by introducing a new label format. > Working Group Summary: This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. There was some discussion about whether to include the management of multi-carrier signals (not yet standardized by the ITU-T). The WG came to consensus that these must be managed as per GMPLS inverse multiplexing capabilities already supported for TDM. The decision lead to the introduction of chapter 4.3 “composite labels”. There were no problems with consensus for this document. > Document Quality: The work has had contributions from a large group of people, the draft is pretty simple, clear and based on RFC6205. Additionally, the work has had external review form the IDEALIST EU project that is making multiple inter-operating implementions of a GMPLS control plane for flexi-grid. > Personnel: Daniele Ceccarelli is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard 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 document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document and believes it 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 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. The definition of a new label encoding does not introduce any new security considerations to RFC3471 and RFC3473. Other topics are not touched by the document. > (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? The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. The replies have been tracked in the datatracker and can be found in the history of the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label/history/. > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the > IPR disclosures. No disclosures have been made. > (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? There has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus on the document. > (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 threats or discontent. > (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. idnits is clean apart from false positives. > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type > reviews. No such reviews needed. > (13) Have all references within this document been identified as > either normative or informative? All references correctly identified. > (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? None such. > (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. idnits warns about normative references to ITU Recommendations as potential downrefs, but everything is OK. > (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. The document updates RFC3471 and RFC6205. This is correctly noted in the header. > (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). The IANA section is consistent with the rest of the document. Two registries are requested to be updated. > (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. The draft does not request the definition of new registries. > (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. No such sections. |
2015-07-27
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2015-07-27
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-07-27
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-07-27
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-07-27
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Changed document writeup |
2015-07-02
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04.txt |
2015-07-02
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Notification list changed to "Daniele Ceccarelli" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> |
2015-07-02
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Document shepherd changed to Daniele Ceccarelli |
2015-07-02
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-06-17
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-06-17
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-06-17
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IPR poll (Daniele) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17136.html AUTHORS Adrian Farrel EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17141.html Daniel King EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17142.html … IPR poll (Daniele) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17136.html AUTHORS Adrian Farrel EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17141.html Daniel King EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17142.html Yao Li EMail: wsliguotou@hotmail.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17140.html Fatai Zhang EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17139.html Zhang Fei EMail: zhangfei7@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17137.html Ramon Casellas EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17138.html |
2015-06-17
|
03 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2015-01-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-03.txt |
2014-11-21
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-02.txt |
2014-06-23
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-01.txt |
2014-06-21
|
00 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2014-06-21
|
00 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IPR declarations for WG adoption: Adrian Farrel-(adrian@olddog.co.uk)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16103.html Daniel King-(daniel@olddog.co.uk)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16147.html Yao Li-(wsliguotou@hotmail.com)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16108.html Fatai Zhang-(zhangfatai@huawei.com)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16129.html … IPR declarations for WG adoption: Adrian Farrel-(adrian@olddog.co.uk)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16103.html Daniel King-(daniel@olddog.co.uk)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16147.html Yao Li-(wsliguotou@hotmail.com)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16108.html Fatai Zhang-(zhangfatai@huawei.com)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16129.html Zhang Fei-(zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16106.html Ramon Casellas-(ramon.casellas@cttc.es)-http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16122.html |
2014-06-13
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-00.txt |