Skip to main content

Recommendation to Use the Ethernet Control Word
draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-11-05
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2018-09-20
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2018-08-17
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2018-07-09
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2018-07-09
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2018-07-09
07 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-07-09
07 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-07-09
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note was changed
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note was changed
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2018-07-09
07 Cindy Morgan RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2018-07-09
07 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2018-07-09
07 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2018-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-07.txt
2018-07-02
07 (System) New version approved
2018-07-02
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stewart Bryant , pals-chairs@ietf.org, Andrew Malis , Ignas Bagdonas
2018-07-02
07 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision
2018-06-21
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2018-06-21
06 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2018-06-21
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alan DeKok.
2018-06-20
06 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-06-20
06 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2018-06-20
06 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
In this text,

  This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
  reasons.  Firstly, due to the deployment of …
[Ballot comment]
In this text,

  This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
  reasons.  Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet
  MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE
  Registration Authority Committee (RAC).  Secondly, concerns over
  privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which
  assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy.  Random assignment
  results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time
  in eight.

the problem caused by the second case is explained well, but the problem caused by the first reason is not. Would it be correct to say

  This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
  reasons.  Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet
  MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE
  Registration Authority Committee (RAC). 

Any addresses that start with either of these two values can be misidentified.

  Secondly, concerns over
  privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which
  assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy.  Random assignment
  results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time
  in eight.

?
2018-06-20
06 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2018-06-20
06 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-06-20
06 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2018-06-19
06 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2018-06-19
06 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Others have mentioned it seems odd that the document says (in several places) that it recommends use of the CW, but section 4 …
[Ballot comment]
Others have mentioned it seems odd that the document says (in several places) that it recommends use of the CW, but section 4 says "MUST". In particular, the document _title_ says RECOMMENDED in all caps, which could be interpreted as an attempt at normative language.  I think this is likely to confuse at least some readers.

§3: The "recent posting" is from 2016. Calling that "recent" is already a bit dated.
2018-06-19
06 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2018-06-18
06 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-06-18
06 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
The title of the document is "Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED", which hints at the corresponding rfc2119 keyword:

  3. SHOULD  This …
[Ballot comment]
The title of the document is "Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED", which hints at the corresponding rfc2119 keyword:

  3. SHOULD  This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
      may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
      particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
      carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

That seems to be in line with the description in the Introduction: "This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control word in all but exceptional circumstances."

However, the qualified recommendation is that if "both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used".  What are the "exceptional circumstances"?  Should that "MUST" be a "SHOULD"?  Should the use be further qualified?

This comment is not a showstopper, just a minor misalignment.
2018-06-18
06 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-06-18
06 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-06-18
06 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot comment]
One minor recommend edit:
Given that this drafts updates RFC4448 to a MUST, maybe s/This document recommends /This document requires/
2018-06-18
06 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-06-15
06 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
In Section 4:

  The use of both methods on the same PW is not normally
  necessary and should be avoided unless …
[Ballot comment]
In Section 4:

  The use of both methods on the same PW is not normally
  necessary and should be avoided unless circumstances require it.

The "both" here refers to ELI and FAT PW (as opposed to CW and
something), right?  Should that be disambiguated or is it clear
enough as-is?
2018-06-15
06 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2018-06-15
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2018-06-11
06 Brian Carpenter Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. Sent review to list.
2018-06-10
06 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Harish Sitaraman.
2018-06-08
06 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-06-21
2018-06-08
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2018-06-08
06 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-06-08
06 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2018-06-08
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2018-06-07
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2018-06-07
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2018-06-07
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2018-06-07
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2018-06-05
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2018-06-05
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2018-06-01
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2018-06-01
06 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2018-06-01
06 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-06-01
06 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-06-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Matthew Bocci , matthew.bocci@nokia.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-06-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Matthew Bocci , matthew.bocci@nokia.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services
WG (pals) to consider the following document: - 'Use of Ethernet Control Word
RECOMMENDED'
  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 2018-06-15. 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


  The pseudowire (PW) encapsulation of Ethernet, as defined in RFC
  4448
, specifies that the use of the control word (CW) is optional.
  In the absence of the CW an Ethernet pseudowire packet can be
  misidentified as an IP packet by a label switching router (LSR).
  This in turn may lead to the selection of the wrong equal-cost-multi-
  path (ECMP) path for the packet, leading in turn to the misordering
  of packets.  This problem has become more serious due to the
  deployment of equipment with Ethernet MAC addresses that start with
  0x4 or 0x6.  The use of the Ethernet PW CW addresses this problem.
  This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control
  word in all but exceptional circumstances.

  This document updates RFC 4448.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2018-06-01
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-06-01
06 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2018-06-01
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2018-06-01
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2018-06-01
06 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2018-06-01
06 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2018-05-25
06 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
2018-05-25
06 (System) New version approved
2018-05-25
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stewart Bryant , Ignas Bagdonas , Andrew Malis
2018-05-25
06 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision
2018-05-14
05 Deborah Brungard Harish Sitaraman will do review for rtgdir.
2018-05-14
05 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2018-05-13
05 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Harish Sitaraman
2018-05-13
05 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Harish Sitaraman
2018-05-11
05 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2018-05-11
05 Stewart Bryant
draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-05

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the …
draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-05

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(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?

  Standards Track.
 
  This is appropriate as the draft describes the use of a protocol extension which is
  required to avoid packet reordering on Ethernet pseudowires in certain cases, updating
  RFC4448 in the process.

  The intended status is properly indicated.

(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

The pseudowire (PW) encapsulation of Ethernet, as defined in RFC
  4448
, specifies that the use of the control word (CW) is optional.
  In the absence of the CW an Ethernet pseudowire packet can be
  misidentified as an IP packet by a label switching router (LSR).
  This in turn may lead to the selection of the wrong equal-cost-multi-
  path (ECMP) path for the packet, leading in turn to the misordering
  of packets.  This problem has become more serious due to the
  deployment of equipment with Ethernet MAC addresses that start with
  0x4 or 0x6.  The use of the Ethernet PW CW addresses this problem.
  This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control
  word in all but exceptional circumstances.

  This document updates RFC 4448.

Working Group Summary

  The document was developed to try to resolve observed misordering of packets on
  Ethernet PWs which can occur when ECMP is applied and the packet aliases for
  and IPv4 or IPv6 packet. Although this problem is already well
  understood, and a solution (the PW control word) widely implemented and deployed. However
  the CW was defined as optional in RFC4448 and so there are some cases where it is not
  implemented or not enabled by operators. There are reports that this is becoming
  an increasing problem with the IEEEE allocating MAC addresses starting with 0x4 or 0x6,
  and so stronger recommendations are required.


  There are no IPR declarations on the draft .

     
Document Quality
   
  I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents
  WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a
  number of years.
 
  The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need
  review.

   
Personnel

  The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com).
  The responsible Area Director is Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com).

(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 reviewed v05 of the document. I had no significant technical
  or editorial comments.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a
  period of a number of IETFs, with some in-depth discussions on both the PALS
  list and in face to face meetings.

(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 further review required.

(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 specific 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.

  Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that
  they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance
  with BCP 78 and 79.

(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 no IPR declarations on the draft.


 
(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?

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. It received a
    number of comments and significant discussion prior to WG last call that
    were addressed by the authors. In particular, these were related to text
    about the impact of the proposals in the draft on the deployed base. These
    comments were resolved after live editing sessions with the proponents.

   

(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.)

  None indicated.

(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.

      ID-Nits passes. There is one warning about pre-RFC5378 work, but
      I believe that the draft only contains new text. 


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  There are no relevant formal review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative or normative.

(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

(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.

  This document updates RFC4448. This is listed in the abstract and the document 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).

  There are no IANA actions.

(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.

  There are no IANA actions.

(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.

  There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.
2018-05-11
05 Stewart Bryant Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2018-05-11
05 Stewart Bryant IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2018-05-11
05 Stewart Bryant IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-05-11
05 Stewart Bryant IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-05-10
05 Matthew Bocci Changed document writeup
2018-05-10
05 Matthew Bocci Changed document writeup
2018-04-16
05 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-05.txt
2018-04-16
05 (System) New version approved
2018-04-16
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stewart Bryant , Ignas Bagdonas , Andrew Malis
2018-04-16
05 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision
2018-03-20
04 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-04.txt
2018-03-20
04 (System) New version approved
2018-03-20
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stewart Bryant , Ignas Bagdonas , Andrew Malis
2018-03-20
04 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision
2018-03-15
03 Dave Sinicrope Added to session: IETF-101: pals  Mon-1550
2018-03-01
03 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-03.txt
2018-03-01
03 (System) New version approved
2018-03-01
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stewart Bryant , Ignas Bagdonas , Andrew Malis
2018-03-01
03 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision
2018-02-28
02 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-02.txt
2018-02-28
02 (System) New version approved
2018-02-28
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stewart Bryant , Ignas Bagdonas , Andrew Malis
2018-02-28
02 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision
2018-02-27
01 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-01.txt
2018-02-27
01 (System) New version approved
2018-02-27
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stewart Bryant , Ignas Bagdonas , Andrew Malis
2018-02-27
01 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision
2017-09-18
00 Andy Malis Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-09-18
00 Andy Malis Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-09-18
00 Andy Malis Notification list changed to Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
2017-09-18
00 Andy Malis Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci
2017-09-18
00 Andy Malis This document now replaces draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw instead of None
2017-09-18
00 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-00.txt
2017-09-18
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-09-18
00 Stewart Bryant Set submitter to "Stewart Bryant ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: pals-chairs@ietf.org
2017-09-18
00 Stewart Bryant Uploaded new revision