The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA)
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-07-07
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-05-11
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-03-30
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2020-02-27
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2019-12-16
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2019-08-19
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2019-08-19
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Carlos Martínez was marked no-response |
2019-03-26
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-03-26
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-03-26
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-03-26
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-03-26
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-03-25
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-03-25
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC |
2019-03-25
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from In Progress |
2019-03-20
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2019-03-20
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-03-20
|
17 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-03-20
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-03-20
|
17 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2019-03-01
|
17 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17.txt |
2019-03-01
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-01
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2019-03-01
|
17 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-01
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thank you for resolving my DISCUSS points. |
2019-03-01
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-03-01
|
16 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-16.txt |
2019-03-01
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-01
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2019-03-01
|
16 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-22
|
15 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-15.txt |
2019-02-22
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-22
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2019-02-22
|
15 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-16
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable in an interoperable fashion. In particular, I'm concerned that there need to … [Ballot discuss] I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable in an interoperable fashion. In particular, I'm concerned that there need to be some values allocated from IANA registries that are not currently mentioned in this document, and there are some potential subtleties surrounding data structure reuse that I'm not entirely sure about as well. I include section-by-section comments in this DISCUSS section (populated by duplicating my COMMENT section and trimming; my apologies if a comment is duplicated in both ballot sections by mistake). Section 4.1 Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation. I can't tell which protocol interaction is being described here. . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for details. Either this is a proper TLV, in which case it has 32 bits of tag and length plus an additional 32 bits of value, for 64 bits total, or it is not a TLV and comprises solely of the "value" field of the Wavelength Selection Sub-TLV. Section 8.2 allocates a TLV type indicator for it, which suggests that the full TLV encoding is intended; where are the 32 bits for type and length reflected in this text and in the figure? Section 4.3.2 RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped value that may change on a per-hop basis. I don't see where our base label gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic. Section 4.4.2 This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]. The WSON Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere? How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage? This seems rather underspecified. |
2019-02-16
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot discuss text updated for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-02-16
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable in an interoperable fashion. In particular, I'm concerned that there need to … [Ballot discuss] I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable in an interoperable fashion. In particular, I'm concerned that there need to be some values allocated from IANA registries that are not currently mentioned in this document, and there are some potential subtleties surrounding data structure reuse that I'm not entirely sure about as well. I include section-by-section comments in this DISCUSS section (populated by duplicating my COMMENT section and trimming; my apologies if a comment is duplicated in both ballot sections by mistake). Section 4.1 Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation. I can't tell which protocol interaction is being described here. . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for details. Either this is a proper TLV, in which case it has 32 bits of tag and length plus an additional 32 bits of value, for 64 bits total, or it is not a TLV and comprises solely of the "value" field of the Wavelength Selection Sub-TLV. Section 8.2 allocates a TLV type indicator for it, which suggests that the full TLV encoding is intended; where are the 32 bits for type and length reflected in this text and in the figure? Section 4.3.2 RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped value that may change on a per-hop basis. I don't see where our base label gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic. Section 4.4.2 This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]. The WSON Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere? How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage? This seems rather underspecified. Section 8.5 Isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)? Section 8.6 As above, isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)? |
2019-02-16
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot discuss text updated for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-02-15
|
14 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-14.txt |
2019-02-15
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-15
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2019-02-15
|
14 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-07
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-02-07
|
13 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-13.txt |
2019-02-07
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-07
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2019-02-07
|
13 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-07
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-02-07
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot discuss] IANA requested a hold so they can check the revised IANA section. |
2019-02-07
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2019-02-07
|
12 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-02-07
|
12 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-02-06
|
12 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2019-02-06
|
12 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-02-06
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-02-06
|
12 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-12.txt |
2019-02-06
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-06
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2019-02-06
|
12 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-06
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] I had concerns similar to those raised by Benjamin and I support his DISCUSS. |
2019-02-06
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I support Benjamin's DISCUSS (and thank him for saving me some typing :-) ) IDNits complains about some citations without matching references. Please … [Ballot comment] I support Benjamin's DISCUSS (and thank him for saving me some typing :-) ) IDNits complains about some citations without matching references. Please check. The "authors" section does not match the first page. Should some of those be listed as "contributors"? |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the very helpful Section 3. |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Benjamin's DISCUSS is a superset of issues I spotted, so I am agreeing with it. In Section 4.1: . Wavelength Selection … [Ballot comment] Benjamin's DISCUSS is a superset of issues I spotted, so I am agreeing with it. In Section 4.1: . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for details. Is TLV value 32 bit or the whole TLV? (This is the same issue as raised by Benjamin) In Section 4.3: o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count field. Is the type field extensible? See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section 4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively. 8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- indicators). Value Description Reference --------------------------------------------------------- TBD5 Optical Interface [This.I-D] Class List I don't see TBD5 referenced anywhere else in the document. 8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- indicators). Value Description Reference --------------------------------------------------------- TBD6 Client Signal Information [This.I-D] I don't see TBD6 referenced anywhere else in the document either. |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-02-05
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-02-04
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I share Benjamin's concerns about the clarity of this document, and support his DISCUSS. I have added some related comments below (not overlapping … [Ballot comment] I share Benjamin's concerns about the clarity of this document, and support his DISCUSS. I have added some related comments below (not overlapping with his, of Mirja's). (1) §4.2 (Wavelength Selection TLV): "The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]." It should be made clear that this document is requesting a new TLV-type code to be assigned (§8.2) for this TLV. IOW, rfc7689 just describes the value part of the TLV... (2) §4.3: s/MUST be able to specify a restriction/MUST specify a restriction I assume you really want the restriction signaled, and not just the ability to do it... (3) §4.3: "the PCE MUST have mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions" How can this be Normatively enforced? It seems to be that the MUST is out of place. s/MUST/must (4) §4.3: "the PCC MUST be able to apply additional constraints" This sounds like a requirement, which is immediately satisfied by the definition of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV...so I think the MUST is out of place. s/MUST/must (5) §4.3.2: s/wavelength restriction TLV/Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV (6) I think that these references should be Normative: rfc5440, rfc8253. |
2019-02-04
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-02-04
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add: 1) … [Ballot comment] I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add: 1) sec 4.3: "an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for the details." This doesn't really make sense as normative "MUST"; I propose to change to lower case "must". 2) sec 4.3: "This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify multiple restrictions." How do you know how much restrictions will be there? Based on a length field in the base protocol? Please clarify in the draft! 3) sec 4.3.2: "Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire label set field." What is meant by "label set field" here? Please clarify in the draft or align wording accordingly. 4) Error value 3 is missing in sec 8.8! |
2019-02-04
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-02-04
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add: 1) … [Ballot comment] I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add: 1) sec 4.3: "an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for the details." This doesn't really make sense as normative "MUST", propose to change to lower case "must". 2) sec 4.3: "This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify multiple restrictions." How do you know how much restrictions will be there? Based on a length field in the base protocol? Please clarify in the draft! 3) sec 4.3.2: "Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire label set field." What is meant by "label set field" here? Please clarify in the draft or align wording accordingly. 4) Error value 3 is missing in sec 8.8! |
2019-02-04
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-02-02
|
11 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable in an interoperable fashion. In particular, I'm concerned that there need to … [Ballot discuss] I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable in an interoperable fashion. In particular, I'm concerned that there need to be some values allocated from IANA registries that are not currently mentioned in this document, and there are some potential subtleties surrounding data structure reuse that I'm not entirely sure about as well. I include section-by-section comments in this DISCUSS section (populated by duplicating my COMMENT section and trimming; my apologies is a comment is duplicated in both ballot sections by mistake). Section 4.1 Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation. I can't tell which protocol interaction is being described here. ::= [] Where: ::=[] ::= [other optional objects...] Is this intended to conform to any particular formal language, or is it an ad hoc description? Where is defined? (RFC 5440 spells it as "" and not "", BTW.) If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after the ENDPOINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. Orderings with respect to the other following objects are irrelevant. The prose and the figure do not exactly match up in this regard (is WA optional or mandatory; does need to be the first of the optional objects?). . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for details. Either this is a proper TLV, in which case it has 32 bits of tag and length plus an additional 32 bits of value, for 64 bits total, or it is not a TLV and comprises solely of the "value" field of the Wavelength Selection Sub-TLV. Section 8.2 allocates a TLV type indicator for it, which suggests that the full TLV encoding is intended; where are the 32 bits for type and length reflected in this text and in the figure? Section 4.3 The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV type is TBD3 (See Section 8.3). This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify multiple restrictions. This is in conflict with the diagram in Section 4.1 (which does not appear to depict multiple occurrences). It's also unclear that the stated reasoning applies, since the RBNF indicates that ( ) can repeat, so the need for multiple TLVs is for different *action* (and count) rather than specifically for the wavelength restrictions. How are future "Action" values to be defined? Various encoding errors are possible with this TLV (e.g., not exactly two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier types, no matching link for a given identifier, etc.). To indicate errors associated with this type, a new Error-Type (TBD8) and an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for the details. This normative language is not appropriate -- it in effect is only constraining the current document, so descriptive language of "a new error type is assigned" is more appropriate. What is the mechanism for extensibility of future Link Identifier sub-TLV types? Should there be a registry? Section 4.3.2 RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped value that may change on a per-hop basis. I don't see where our base label gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic. Section 4.4 The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follows: ::= [...] Where is the original definition that is being updated? (Why does this definition not include the component from [PCEP-GMPLS]?) Why is there no Updates: relationship to reflect this extension? Is supposed to be the same TLV as defined in Section 4.3.2 without a separate containing PCEP object? Per [PCEP-GMPLS], is a TLV. Does that not also mean that and need to be (comprised of) sibling TLVs? This document allocates a TLV type for Wavelength Restriction Constraint in Section 8.3, but the references to RFC 7581 for and seem to only be for the encoding of sub-TLVs, with sub-TLV values that live in the separate "Types for Subfields of WSON Resource Block Information" registry and are in a colliding namespace. Don't we need to allocate TLV values from the same place as (i.e., first-level PCEP TLVs) in order for this to be en/decodable? Section 4.4.1 The permitted sub-sub objects are the Optical Interface Class List and the Client Signal information whose encodings are described in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 of [RFC7581], respectively. Similarly to for the , don't we need to allocate XRO Subobject values in order for these structures to be semantically en/decodable? Section 4.4.2 This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]. The referenced structure is defined as an RSVP-TE LSP attribute. I cannot find any evidence that its usage in PCEP is defined, nor any TLV or subobject type allocated for its usage with PCEP. (Is there some generic equivalence or mapping between (G)MPLS EROs and IROs and the PCEP analogues that I haven't encountered yet?) Don't we need to allocate an IRO Subobject value for this usage in a PCEP IRO object? Also, the WSON Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere? How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage? This seems rather underspecified. Section 5 I'm very confused by the structure definition. It claims to be the "TLV data", but also includes a type and length field so as to indicate that it is not just the data contents but the header as well. But the length field is truncated by a bit for use as the 'M' flag -- how can we modify the outer TLV header in this way?! Section 8.4 indicates that this type value is to be allocated from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry created by RFC 5440, that uses the full 2 bytes for the "length" field. Section 5.1 This section describes an Error-value=3 that is not reflected in Section 8.8 in the requests to IANA. Section 8.5 Isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)? Section 8.6 As above, isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)? |
2019-02-02
|
11 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 3 A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one or several transparent segments, which are delimited … [Ballot comment] Section 3 A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R regenerators (Re-amplification, Re-shaping, Re-timing) typically with electronic regenerator and optional wavelength conversion. Each transparent segment or path in WSON is referred to as an optical path. An optical path may span multiple fiber links and the path should be assigned the same wavelength for each link. In such case, the optical path is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between a LSC LSP and transparent segments (optical paths). Some nit-level remarks: using "optical path" for both transparent segments and paths is perhaps confusing; perhaps "an optical path in WSON refers to a transparent pathe that can comprise of one or more segments". If the path "should be assigned the same wavelength for each link", what kind of constraint is that? Is it just a nice "feel-good" thing for humans, is there some physical requirement for it, does it make planning simpler? I understand that this is lowercase and thus not intended to be normative, but on first read it feels like the implication is that there is some aspect of the physics that drives this to be the case; I don't actually believe that to be true, though. What entities would care if the "wavelength-continuity constraint" is satisfied? (That is, is it really a "constraint" or more of a "property"?) I'm a little confused by Figure 1, shich weems to imply by link labels that the middle nodes that are not makred "(3R)" are LSC nodes, but isn't it the case that if these nodes make use of their lamda switching capabilities that they will cease to be transparent and instead also be 3Rs? Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, the two signals Are these "two optical paths" part of the same or different LSPs? My best reading of the two instances of the phrase are that the first one is the same LSP and the second usage is for different LSPs, which is pretty confusing to the reader (if true). Please expand PSC and TDM. In order to improve the signal quality and limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing capabilities are used. [...] Used by this document specifically, or in general usage? This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part of RWA path computation. Do we need a link/reference for "optical impairments"? Section 4.1 o Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed. Do we also want to say "ignored on receipt"? Please expand TED and NMS (IGP is "well-known" per https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt). Section 4.3 Note that "interfaces" are assumed to be bidirectional. You haven't used the term "interface" (with or without scare quotes) yet, so this is a dangling reference. How are future "Action" values to be defined? o Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed. And ignored on receipt? Section 4.3.2 If you're going to copy the Label Set format here from RFC 7579, maybe you could say something like "repeated here for convenience, with the base label internal structure included" to spare the reader from having to go compare the two formats? This also holds for the list of Action values and the other field descriptions not already incorporated from RFC 7579 by reference. RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped value that may change on a per-hop basis. I don't see where our base label gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic. Section 4.4 Path computation for WSON includes checking of signal processing capabilities at each interface against requested capability; this requirement MAY be implemented by the IGP. [...] How is the IGP supposed to check the processing capabilities of an interface against a given request? I'd suggest rephrasing this text to parallel the text in Section 4.3 about how mechanisms to know the interface capabilities can include IGP or NMS. The supported signal processing capabilities are those described in [RFC7446]: "Supported by what?" Perhaps rephrase as "The signal processing capabilities considered in the RWA Information Model [RFC7446] are:". Section 4.4.1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |X| Type = X | Length | Reserved | Attribute | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I strongly suggest using a different placeholder than 'X' in "Type = X" since there is a separate 'X' bit. Reserved bits (8 bits) are for future use and SHOULD be zeroed. And ignored on receipt? The Attribute field (8 bits) indicates how the exclusion sub-object is to be interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1 (Node). I would suggest phrasing this more like "[RFC5521] defines several Attribute values; the only permitted Attribute values for this sub-object are [...]". Section 4.4.2 This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP IRO object [RFC5440]. The referenced structure is defined as an RSVP-TE LSP attribute. I cannot find any evidence that its usage in PCEP is defined, nor any TLV or subobject type allocated for its usage with PCEP. (Is there some generic equivalence or mapping between (G)MPLS EROs and IROs and the PCEP analogues that I haven't encountered yet?) Don't we need to allocate an IRO Subobject value for this usage in a PCEP IRO object? Also, the WSON Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere? How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage? This seems rather underspecified. Section 5 Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during signaling) to complete wavelength allocation. The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD4 (See Section 8.4). The TLV data is defined as follows: Could you maybe give a bit more of transition/explanation, e.g., whether this TLV is used for both (a) and (b), that it's a hop attribute that appears in a TLV in the ERO's TLV list, etc. This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570]. RFC 7570 seems to call these "Hop Attribute Subobjects", if I'm finding the right place. Using consistent naming would be a big help to the (confused) reader. Section 6 Thank you for the Manageability Considerations section; it helps give a picture of how this slots into the broader ecosystem. |
2019-02-02
|
11 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-01-28
|
11 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list. |
2019-01-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2019-01-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-02-07 |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-01-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-01-14
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-01-14
|
11 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11.txt |
2019-01-14
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-01-14
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2019-01-14
|
11 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-28
|
10 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list. |
2018-12-27
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-12-26
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2018-12-26
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2018-12-24
|
10 | Watson Ladd | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. Sent review to list. |
2018-12-24
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-12-24
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete. First, in the PCEP Objects registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Object-Class Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: WA Object-Type: 1: Wavelength-Assignment Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ five, new registrations will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Wavelength Selection Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Wavelength Restriction Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Wavelength Allocation Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Optical Interface Class List Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Client Signal Information Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: No RWA constraints met Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Fourth, in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Error-Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Meaning: WSON RWA Error Error-value: 1: Insufficient Memory 2 RWA computation not supported Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-12-20
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd |
2018-12-20
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Daniele Ceccarelli , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Daniele Ceccarelli , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment' 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 2018-12-27. 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 This document provides the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical path computation. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10.txt |
2018-12-13
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-13
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2018-12-13
|
10 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-04
|
09 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-09.txt |
2018-11-04
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-04
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2018-11-04
|
09 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-22
|
08 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ravi Singh. |
2018-10-08
|
08 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh |
2018-10-08
|
08 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh |
2018-10-05
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2018-10-01
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? >Standard Track. It 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 provides the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation. Working Group Summary > The document is supported by the WG and no particular issue was raised during the WG last call. Document Quality > The protocol is widely implemented but I am not aware of any commercial implementation of the extensions defined in this document. The document is signed by authors from different vendors, operators and research centers, hence I guess someone has plans to develop it. The draft have been reviewed by the shepherd but no particular review was carried out. (e.g. MIB doctor etc) Personnel > Who is the Document Shepherd? Daniele Ceccarelli > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard (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 shepherd review raised a number of issues that have been solved by the authors. The new version of the document (-06) is ready to be moved forward. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? >None (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 particular review is needed. (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 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. > Yes. Polling carried out on the mailing list. All the authors and contributors replied. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. > No IPR disclosed against this document (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 WG as a whole supports 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 concern raised by any member of the WG during the document lifecycle. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. > All the nits have been fixed by the authors in version -06. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. > The document does not require any formal review (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? > All the normative references are published RFC or approved for publication. (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. > None (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 RFC status is updated by this document. (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 drafts defines new PCEP objects, PCEP TLVs, Error types and Values. They are all correctly indicated in the IANA section with reference to the right registries. (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. > All the registries to be updated are identified by the “IETF review” registration procedure. (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 automated check performed. |
2018-10-01
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2018-10-01
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Parked WG Document |
2018-10-01
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-10-01
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-10-01
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-10-01
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-05-14
|
08 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-08.txt |
2018-05-14
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-14
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2018-05-14
|
08 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-20
|
07 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-07.txt |
2017-11-20
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-20
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee |
2017-11-20
|
07 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-19
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-04-10
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | This draft is ready to be submitted to the IESG. Waiting for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions before submitting for publication. |
2017-04-10
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to Parked WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2017-01-12
|
06 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Changed document writeup |
2016-12-16
|
06 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-06.txt |
2016-12-16
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-16
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Young Lee" , "Ramon Casellas" |
2016-12-16
|
06 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-22
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-11-22
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Notification list changed to "Daniele Ceccarelli" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> |
2016-11-22
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Document shepherd changed to Daniele Ceccarelli |
2016-08-15
|
05 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-05.txt |
2016-02-11
|
04 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-04.txt |
2015-07-21
|
03 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-03.txt |
2015-06-01
|
02 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-02.txt |
2013-11-06
|
01 | Julien Meuric | Set of documents this document replaces changed to draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext from None |
2013-07-12
|
01 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-01.txt |
2013-04-02
|
00 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-00.txt |