OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-05-10
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-04-23
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-04-16
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-04-16
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA |
2018-04-16
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2018-04-16
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2018-04-13
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-04-13
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on ADs |
2018-03-27
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> |
2018-03-27
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2018-03-12
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT |
2018-02-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from In Progress |
2018-02-05
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-02-05
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-02-05
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-02-05
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-02-05
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-02-05
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2018-02-05
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-02-05
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-02-05
|
16 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-02-05
|
16 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my Discuss and comment. |
2018-02-05
|
16 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-02-04
|
16 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-16.txt |
2018-02-04
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-04
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler |
2018-02-04
|
16 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-31
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-01-31
|
15 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-15.txt |
2018-01-31
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-31
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler |
2018-01-31
|
15 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-25
|
14 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-01-25
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-01-25
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] As mentioned by Tim, part of the OPS DIR review. It's the authors and responsible AD to decide whether to act on those … [Ballot comment] As mentioned by Tim, part of the OPS DIR review. It's the authors and responsible AD to decide whether to act on those comments. I believe the document is Ready for publication. I have only three minor comments below, which the authors may choose to act on. Overall the document reads reasonably well. Not being overly familiar with the material, I needed to read it through end-to-end more than once to better understand its scope and intent. My first comment would be that perhaps the introduction section could be better written; the abstract seemed clear on the purpose of the draft, while the introduction felt a little muddled. Sections 2, 3 and 4, which detail the motivations and extensions, were much clearer. Secondly, there are some minor typographic errors throughout the document, generally missing (in)definite articles. While the RFC Editor would pick these up, it would be nice for the authors to have a final pass and fix those before submission. Thirdly, the document does not give any advice on the timing of using the extensions - how far in advance is it recommended to use the extensions? - or on the return to 'normal' state once the maintenance is completed. So perhaps consider adding a short section on this, maybe in Section 5. |
2018-01-25
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2018-01-24
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-01-24
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-01-24
|
14 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-14.txt |
2018-01-24
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-24
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler |
2018-01-24
|
14 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve. … [Ballot comment] I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve. The rest are non-blocking comments. (1) The following should be Normative references: rfc2119 and rfc6987 -- this last one because MaxLinkMetric (which is defined there) is extensively used (as a MUST) throughout the document. (2) Section 3. (Flooding Scope) provides information about the flooding scope, but only references for OSPFv2. It would be nice if the references for OSPFv3 were included there as well. (3) Section 4.5. mentions that a "new TLV called Graceful-Link-Shutdown is defined" for BGP-LS, but there are no details on the format, etc. The IANA Considerations section suggests a value, not for a TLV but for an NLRI Type! (4) Section 5: "The node that has the link to be taken out of service SHOULD advertise the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV..." When would the node not advertise the sub-TLV? IOW, why is "MUST" not used? (5) In 5.1: "MAX-TE-METRIC is a constant defined by this draft and set to 0xfffffffe." Assuming that the intent is to define a new architectural constant... I would rather see this constant defined separately (in it's own section/sub-section with a formal definition) instead of "in passing" while describing how to use it (a la MaxLinkMetric in rfc6987). (6) 5.1 says that the metrics "MUST be set to MaxLinkMetric...and SHOULD be set to MAX-TE-METRIC". Why is there a difference? (7) s/MAX_METRIC/MaxLinkMetric [1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot comment text updated for Alvaro Retana |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve. … [Ballot comment] I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve. The rest are non-blocking comments. (1) The following should be Normative references: rfc2119 and rfc6987 -- this last one because MaxLinkMetric (which is defined there) is extensively used (as a MUST) throughout the document. (2) Section 3. (Flooding Scope) provides information about the flooding scope, but only references for OSPFv2. It would be nice if the references for OSPFv3 were included there as well. (3) Section 4.5. mentions that a "new TLV called Graceful-Link-Shutdown is defined" for BGP-LS, but there are no details on the format, etc. The IANA Considerations section suggests a value, not for a TLV but for an NLRI Type! (4) Section 5: "The node that has the link to be taken out of service SHOULD advertise the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV..." When would the node not advertise the sub-TLV? IOW, why is "MUST" not used? (5) In 5.1: "MAX-TE-METRIC is a constant defined by this draft and set to 0xfffffffe." Assuming that the intent is to define a new architectural constant... I would rather see this constant defined separately (in it's own section/sub-section with a formal definition) instead of "in passing" while describing how to use it (a la MaxLinkMetric in rfc6987). (6) 5.1 says that the metrics "MUST be set to MaxLinkMetric...and SHOULD be set to MAX-TE-METRIC". Why is there a difference? (7) s/MAX_METRIC/MaxLinkMetric |
2018-01-24
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-01-23
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2018-01-23
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -8: It would be helpful to see a few sentences about how the security considerations in 2328 and 5340 apply to the mechanisms … [Ballot comment] -8: It would be helpful to see a few sentences about how the security considerations in 2328 and 5340 apply to the mechanisms in this draft, rather than just a "no new considerations" assertion. |
2018-01-23
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell |
2018-01-23
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot discuss] This document is defining a MAX-TE-METRIC of 0xfffffffe. But RFC5817 defined 0xffffffff to be used for graceful shutdown. I noted an email exchange … [Ballot discuss] This document is defining a MAX-TE-METRIC of 0xfffffffe. But RFC5817 defined 0xffffffff to be used for graceful shutdown. I noted an email exchange between the author and Acee on this where Acee raised the question why RFC5817's value was not used. Shraddha replied "We can if we have the Working Group Consensus". There was no further discussion. This document was not shared with teas which is responsible for TE (or ccamp which was originally responsible for RFC5817). Either this value needs to be changed to RFC5817's value or this TE metric needs to be removed from this document until agreement with TEAS. |
2018-01-23
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to Discuss from No Objection |
2018-01-22
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot comment] I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. … [Ballot comment] I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. It is not "TE" in the IETF sense e.g. TE signaling. It would be much less confusing if say "Controller Based Deployments" and "satisfying the traffic engineering constraints"/s/"satisfying the constraints". Especially as for TE, procedures already do exist. I noted in the introduction you did reference RFC5817 MPLS Graceful Shutdown on the procedures when doing a graceful shutdown of a TE link. |
2018-01-22
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard |
2018-01-22
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot comment] I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. … [Ballot comment] I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. It is not "TE" in the IETF sense e.g. TE signaling. It would be much less confusing if say "Controller Based Deployments" and "satisfying the traffic engineering constraints"/s/"satisfying the constraints". Especially as for TE, procedures already do exist. I noted you did reference RFC5817 MPLS Graceful Shutdown on the procedures when doing a graceful shutdown of a TE link. |
2018-01-22
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard |
2018-01-22
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-01-22
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-01-22
|
13 | Tim Chown | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tim Chown. Sent review to list. |
2018-01-21
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-01-21
|
13 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13.txt |
2018-01-21
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-21
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler |
2018-01-21
|
13 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Joel Halpern | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] I think this document would be clearer if the example in S 7.1 were in the intro. I was scratching my head a … [Ballot comment] I think this document would be clearer if the example in S 7.1 were in the intro. I was scratching my head a bit at the beginning and then got to 7.1 and it made more sense. |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-01-18
|
12 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-01-16
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-01-16
|
12 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12.txt |
2018-01-16
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-16
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler |
2018-01-16
|
12 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-16
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-01-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-01-12
|
11 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ the following temporary registrations will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]: Value: 7 Description: Link-Overload Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 8 Description: Remote IPv4 Address Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 9 Description: Local/Remote Interface ID Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in a registry to be created upon the approval of another draft, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend, the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV Registry, a new value will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Link Overload Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors have suggested the value of 7 for this registration. Third, in the BGP-LS NLRI-Types registry on the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ the following temporary registration will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]: Type: 1101 NLRI Type: Link-Overload TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. 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 the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2018-01-04
|
11 | Sean Turner | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sean Turner. Sent review to list. |
2018-01-04
|
11 | Joel Halpern | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. |
2018-01-04
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2018-01-04
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-16): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, ospf@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-16): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, ospf@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , acee@cisco.com, ospf-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (OSPF Link Overload) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'OSPF Link Overload' 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 2018-01-16. 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 When a link is being prepared to be taken out of service, the traffic needs to be diverted from both ends of the link. Increasing the metric to the highest metric on one side of the link is not sufficient to divert the traffic flowing in the other direction. It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be able to advertise a link as being in an overload state to indicate impending maintenance activity on the link. This information can be used by the network devices to re-route the traffic effectively. This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate link- overload information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2577/ |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-01-02
|
11 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-01-01
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-01-01
|
11 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11.txt |
2018-01-01
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-01
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler |
2018-01-01
|
11 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-12-31
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2017-12-31
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2017-12-28
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2017-12-28
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2017-12-22
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux. |
2017-12-21
|
10 | Joel Halpern | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. |
2017-12-20
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2017-12-20
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2017-12-19
|
10 | Alia Atlas | As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10. First, I would like to thank the authors - Shraddha, Pushpasis, Hannes, Mohan, and … As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10. First, I would like to thank the authors - Shraddha, Pushpasis, Hannes, Mohan, and Luay - as well as the WG for their hard work on this document. I have several minor comments that should be resolved before it goes to IETF Last Call. 1) Personally, not having all of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 readily in my head, I would find it helpful to have some examples where the Link Type, Link ID, and Link Data aren't enough to differentiate the parallel links. I am, of course, familiar with this issue for IS-IS - but I don't recall running into when implementing LFA. I would find it useful to see some examples of a topology with the LSA with TLV & sub-TLVs to handle some of the cases - particularly interacting with parallel links. 2) If there is the issue with parallel links, why isn't there a remote IPv6 address sub-TLV for use with OSPFv3? 3) The Remote IPv4 address and Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLVs imply that they are narrowing the scope of the Extended Link Opaque TLV from multiple parallel links to one. However, there is no specific wording explaining how they would be generally applied (and yet the naming implies that they might be) or the implications for other sub-TLVs that might be included or how to handle the new need for multiple Extended Link Opaque TLVs that aren't supported in RFC 7684. From RFC 7684, it is clear that: " If multiple OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs include the same link, the attributes from the Opaque LSA with the lowest Opaque ID will be used." and that there should be only one Extended Link TLV. For instance, what happens if a SID sub-TLV is also specified? What if a SID sub-TLV was specified in an Extended Link TLV - and now the router wants to advertise a link-overload for only one of the particularly parallel links? |
2017-12-19
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2017-12-19
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-01-25 |
2017-12-18
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-12-13
|
10 | Acee Lindem | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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? A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page 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: This document specifies extensions to OSPFv3 Prefix/Link attributes LSA and the OSPFv3 Extended-Router-LSA to indicate that a link is going to be taken out of service and traffic using the link should be discouraged but not prevented as a last resort. Multiple service providers expressed interest and some are authors. Working Group Summary: There was considerable discussion on both the use case and whether we could use signaling amongst the routers on the link. However, this would not allow a controller to be informed. Additionally, there was discussion as to whether this could simply inferred from a high forward metric. After some discussion, it was agreed explicit signaling was preferred. Additionally, there was some intertwining of requirements with the signaling of other OSPF link attributes. Now that these are resolved we can move forward with this draft. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for more a years. There have been several iterations due to the controversy over area-wide versus neighbor signaling. Now that we have reached consensus, the document is fairly stable from a protocol standpoint. There has been some discussion on the use cases and they have been refined in the current version. Personnel: Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd. Alia Atlas 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 each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. The document shepherd fully believes that we have reached consensus and that the document can move forward. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. None. (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? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that this document can progress. (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. (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. Nits are all resolved. (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. Publication has been requested for the "OSPFv3 Extended LSAs" draft. (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. No. (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 draft request code points from existing OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and BGP-LS registries. Early allocation will be requested to encourage implementation. A link-overload Sub-TLV is requested from both the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute TLV and the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs registry. Additionally, Remote-IPv4 address and Local/Remote Interface ID Sub-TLVs are requested for OSPFv2 since OSPFv2 doesn't handle unique identification of parallel links between OSPFv2 routers. Finally, a BGP-LS TLV code point is request for Link-Overload for the a BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLV. (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. Not applicable. (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. |
2017-12-13
|
10 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2017-12-13
|
10 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2017-12-13
|
10 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-12-13
|
10 | Acee Lindem | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-12-06
|
10 | Acee Lindem | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-29
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Martin Vigoureux |
2017-11-29
|
10 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Martin Vigoureux |
2017-11-29
|
10 | Acee Lindem | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2017-11-26
|
10 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt |
2017-11-26
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-26
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler |
2017-11-26
|
10 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-07
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-11-07
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-11-07
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> |
2017-11-07
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem |
2017-08-14
|
09 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-09.txt |
2017-08-14
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-14
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Gredler , Shraddha Hegde , Mohan Nanduri , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil |
2017-08-14
|
09 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-27
|
08 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-08.txt |
2017-07-27
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-17
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Gredler , Shraddha Hegde , Mohan Nanduri , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil |
2017-07-17
|
08 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-02
|
07 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt |
2017-07-02
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-02
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Shraddha Hegde , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil , Hannes Gredler , Mohan Nanduri , ospf-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-07-02
|
07 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-19
|
06 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-06.txt |
2017-04-19
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-19
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Hannes Gredler , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil |
2017-04-19
|
06 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-23
|
05 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt |
2017-02-23
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-23
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Hannes Gredler , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil |
2017-02-23
|
05 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-18
|
04 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-04.txt |
2017-02-18
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-18
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Shraddha Hegde" , "Pushpasis Sarkar" , "Mohan Nanduri" , "Hannes Gredler" , "Luay Jalil" |
2017-02-18
|
04 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-12
|
03 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03.txt |
2017-02-12
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-12
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Shraddha Hegde" , "Pushpasis Sarkar" , "Mohan Nanduri" , "Hannes Gredler" , "Luay Jalil" |
2017-02-12
|
03 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-08
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-07-07
|
02 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-02.txt |
2016-01-06
|
01 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-01.txt |
2015-10-28
|
00 | Acee Lindem | This document now replaces draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload instead of None |
2015-10-19
|
00 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-00.txt |