Framework for Scheduled Use of Resources
draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-07

[Ballot comment]
It might be nice to have some idea of a typical/expected timescale for length of reservation and distance in the future
being reserved, though I concede there is risk that any such suggestion could become stale.

In Section 3.2

  [...] When the LSP or the
  request for the LSP with a number of time intervals is cancelled, the
  PCE must release the resources that were reserved on each of the
  links along the path of the LSP in every time intervals from the TED.
  If the bandwidth reserved on a link for the LSP is B from time T2 to
  T3 and the unreserved bandwidth on the link is B2 from T2 to T3, B is
  added to the link for the time interval from T2 to T3 and the
  unreserved bandwidth on the link from T2 to T3 will be B2 + B

Is this supposed to describe what happens when the request for an
LSP from T2 to T3 is cancelled?  If so, the text does not do a good
job of indicating it -- the "If the bandwidth reserved..." reads like it's
starting a new conditional expression, not necessarily connected to the
previous coverage of cancellation.


Thank you for the clear security considerations section!

[Ballot comment]
One question: I think I don't understand how the proposed framework would interact with non-Time-Scheduled reservations or reservations that support TS but don't know their end-time. If you have such reservations, you basically already need to block the resources of all future scheduled reservations because you don't know how long the requested unbounded reservation is needed, which could also lead to an non-optimal resource  scheduling. Could you please clarify this in the document or further elaborate/acknowledge this problem in the doc?

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-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,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Vishnu Beeram , teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net, draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Framework for Scheduled Use of Resources) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Framework for
Scheduled Use of Resources'
  as Informational RFC

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 2018-03-28. 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


  Time-scheduled reservation of traffic engineering (TE) resources can
  be used to provide resource booking for TE Label Switched Paths so as
  to better guarantee services for customers and to improve the
  efficiency of network resource usage at any moment in time including
  future planned network usage.  This document provides a framework
  that describes and discusses the architecture for supporting
  scheduled reservation of TE resources.  This document does not
  describe specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to realize
  this service.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3081/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3083/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2893/

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Vishnu Beeram , teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net, draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Framework for Scheduled Use of Resources) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Framework for
Scheduled Use of Resources'
  as Informational RFC

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 2018-03-06. 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


  Time-scheduled reservation of traffic engineering (TE) resources can
  be used to provide resource booking for TE Label Switched Paths so as
  to better guarantee services for customers and to improve the
  efficiency of network resource usage at any moment in time including
  future planned network usage.  This document provides a framework
  that describes and discusses the architecture for supporting
  scheduled reservation of TE resources.  This document does not
  describe specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to realize
  this service.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3081/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3083/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2893/

> 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)?

Informational.

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

This is an architecture document. It discusses the architecture for the
scheduled reservation of TE resources.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

>
> (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
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

  Time-scheduled reservation of traffic engineering (TE) resources can
  be used to provide resource booking for TE Label Switched Paths so as
  to better guarantee services for customers and to improve the
  efficiency of network resource usage into the future.  This document
  provides a framework that describes and discusses the architecture
  for the scheduled reservation of TE resources.  This document does
  not describe specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to
  realize this service.

> Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

The progress of the document through the WG has been smooth.
There were originally two individual I-Ds, that discussed different
approaches to managing scheduled resource usage in TE networks.
The authors of the two I-Ds merged their ideas and produced a single
document. This merged document eventually got adopted by the WG.


>
> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?


This document has been discussed and reviewed thoroughly by the WG.
The base PCE architecture and the PCEP protocol have been implemented.
The document that uses this architecture and proposes the set of PCEP
extensions to “enable LSP scheduling for path computation and LSP
setup/deletion based on the actual network resource usage duration of
a traffic service” is actively being worked on in the PCE WG. While
there have been no public statements on implementation of this new
architecture, the authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation
is expected.


> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Vishnu Pavan Beeram

> 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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as part of normal WG progress
and WG last call. The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication.

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

No.

> (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?

No.

> If so, describe the review that took place.

N/A.

>
> (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.

Yes, see thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/7g3psUCLrX2H5nVHUYRcxmiBkvc


>
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

Yes, an IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3081/

> (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? 

Solid among those who are interested. "strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

> (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 discontent seen.

>
> (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.

The document passes ID nits.

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

N/A.

> (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.

> (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 IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd and is
appropriate for this draft.

> (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.

None.

> (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.

N/A