Seamless MPLS Architecture
draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-07-02
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2015-07-02
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed |
2015-07-01
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Authors have been unresponsive. |
2015-07-01
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2015-06-15
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
2015-03-25
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2014-10-20
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-09-30
|
07 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS WG request that … The MPLS WG request that Seamless MPLS Architecture draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 is published as an Informational RFC. (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? We request that this document is published as an informational RFC. The document does not specify any protocol, just gives advice on how already existing MPLS signaling protocol could be used to configure a seamless MPLS. Informational is the right type of RFC. The document header says "Informational"! (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 This documents describes an architecture which can be used to extend MPLS networks to integrate access and aggregation networks into a single MPLS domain ("Seamless MPLS"). The Seamless MPLS approach is based on existing and well known protocols. It provides a highly flexible and a scalable architecture and the possibility to integrate 100,000 of nodes. The separation of the service and transport planes is one of the key elements; Seamless MPLS provides end to end service independent transport. Therefore it removes the need for service specific configurations in network transport nodes (without end to end transport MPLS, some additional services nodes/configurations would be required to glue each transport domain). This draft defines a routing architecture using existing standardized protocols. It does not invent any new protocols or defines extensions to existing protocols. Working Group Summary "Seamless MPLS" is generally accepted in the MPLS working group. It did originate with operators that have large MPLS networks and the uptake is very good among vendors. There are also a number of solutions drafts that will take this architecture as a starting point. There has been nothing in WG process outside the normal. However it might be good to read the IPR section below. Document Quality There are networks that have been configured according to this architecture,¨ however since this it an architecture document, there is strictly no implementations. There will be protocol specifying documents that will define additions that is useful if you use this architecture, e.g. p2mp and load sharing (entropy labels) in seamless MPLS networks. There are large operators that uses this architecture and there are vendors that intend to implement the extensions useful for seamless MPLS networks. There have been no MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review of this document. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Anderson is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel 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. This document has a comparatively long history, the individual document was posted in October 2009 and attracted quite a bit of interest (maybe because it originated from a major operator. The Shepherd (without know that he'd be the future Shepherd) reviewed and discussed the document on several occasions. The poll that made this a working group document was closed on May 12 2011. This was prior to we started the MPLS-RT and the shepherd reviewed the document prior to starting the poll. The shepherd also reviewed the document during the wg process and once more for the working group last call. (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. No such reviews necessary. (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 the authors and contributors has stated on the working group mailing list that they are not aware of any IPRs than those already disclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are 3 IPRs filed against this document. One of those IPR disclosures were very late (filed 2008 and disclosed in 2013) one of the authors were listed as an inventor on that patent. This caused quite a bit of a mail discussion, that ended with an apology on the working group mailing list. (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 very good! (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 such threats. (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. This document clears the nits tool clean, with the exception that there is a later version of one of the documents. (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 required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, the references are correctly split in normative and informative. (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? The only normative reference is to RFC 2119. (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. (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. There will be now status change for any document when this document is published. (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). There are not requests for IANA allocations in this document. (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 such 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 automated reviews. |
2014-09-30
|
07 | Loa Andersson | State Change Notice email list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls@tools.ietf.org |
2014-09-30
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-09-30
|
07 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-09-30
|
07 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-09-30
|
07 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-09-30
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-17
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-16
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-16
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-16
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-16
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-16
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2014-09-16
|
07 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2014-06-28
|
07 | Maciek Konstantynowicz | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07.txt |
2014-02-14
|
06 | Maciek Konstantynowicz | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-06.txt |
2014-01-13
|
05 | Maciek Konstantynowicz | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-05.txt |
2013-10-23
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2013-10-23
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2013-10-23
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-10-15
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-04 | |
2013-10-07
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-04 | |
2013-09-26
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from In WG Last Call |
2013-09-26
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2013-09-26
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-09-05
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
2013-09-05
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IPR poll is running! |
2013-09-05
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2013-07-15
|
04 | Maciek Konstantynowicz | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-04.txt |
2013-05-13
|
03 | Maciek Konstantynowicz | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-03.txt |
2012-10-22
|
02 | Maciek Konstantynowicz | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-02.txt |
2012-03-12
|
01 | Nicolai Leymann | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-01.txt |
2011-12-01
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-05-30
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-00.txt |