> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
This document is requested for publication as Standards Track, and noted
accordingly in the document header.
> Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC
> indicated in the title page header?
The document describes the protocol extensions and procedures for Resource
reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling to support Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) used within a GMPLS-controlled flexi-grid optical
networks.
> (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 International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization
Sector (ITU-T) extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new
dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal
central frequencies, channel spacing's and the concept of "frequency slot". In
such an environment, a data plane connection is switched based on allocated,
variable-sized frequency ranges within the optical spectrum creating what is
known as flexi-grid.
This document reflects recommendations defined by the ITU-T and describes the
requirements, procedures and protocol extensions for RSVP-TE signaling to set
up LSPs in optical networks that support flexi-grid. The I-D using the label
definition documented in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.
> Working Group Summary:
The initial RSVP-TE signaling extensions in support of flexible grid
Internet-Draft (I-D) was published in October 2011, after numerous
presentations at CCAMP working group (WG) meetings and list discussions it has
matured over several versions. Key discussion points included:
+ Traffic Parameters
- Its correct use
+ Grid Value
- To determine how to carry the central frequency & slot width in RSVP-TE
+ Refined to make it consistent with flexible grid framework and label
extension I-Ds
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label
The issues above were discussed during IETF meetings and on the mailing list
and an acceptable (by the CCAMP WG) definitions were established. Overall the
document has received broad support from the CCAMP WG during its life. No
objection to progression of the I-D (via the CCAMP mailing list or documented
in CCAMP WG minutes), and especially at Last Call was recorded.
> Document Quality:
The work has had contributions from a large group of people from multiple
people both from the ITU-T and IETF. Additionally, the work has had external
review from the IDEALIST EU project (http://www.ict-idealist.eu/) that is
making multiple inter-operating implementations of a GMPLS control plane for
flexible grid
> Personnel:
+ Daniel King is the document Shepherd
+ Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director
Note that Since both the CCAMP WG Chairs (Fatai Zhang & Daniele Ceccarelli)
and the CCAMP WG Secretary (Oscar Gonzalez de Dios) are involved in the draft
as co-authors, a document shepherd which is not one of the Chairs or the
Secretary was requested.
> (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 (Daniel King) has reviewed the current revision of the
document and believes it 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 concerns.
> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or
> from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational
> complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If
> so, describe the review that took place.
No such content.
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
> Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area
> Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example,
> perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the
> document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for
> it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
> detail those concerns here.
No such concerns.
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain
> why?
The WG chairs contacted all authors and contributors for statements that they
had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded and their statements recorded
on the CCAMP mailing list and collected in the history of the draft as comments
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext/history/
)
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
> IPR disclosures.
One IPR disclosure has been recorded on 4 August, 2015.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2650/
> (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 has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus for the
document. See section 2 (above) for more detail.
> (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 threats or discontent has been recorded.
> (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.
After using the idnits tool against the current document, a few minor
issues/comments exist:
(38): Line has weird spacing: '... months and ...'
(39): Line has weird spacing: '... at any time...'
(40): Line has weird spacing: '...ference mate...'
(514): Unexpected reference format: '...[FLEX-LBL]King, D., ...'
Furthermore, I note a typo on line (461) "draft-ietf-cammp-flexi-grid-fwk"
should be changed to "draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk".
One minor comment from this Shepherd. The document title and file name use the
definition "flexible grid". Associated I-Ds (draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk &
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label) use the term "flexi-grid". However,
this document does mention in section 1 ("Introduction") that ""flexible
grids", [are] known as "flexi-grid"".
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
> reviews.
No such reviews needed.
> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?
All references correctly identified.
> (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 such normative references exist.
> (15) Are there downward normative references (see
> RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support
> the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
The idnits tool warns about normative references to ITU G.694.1 as a potential
downref.
> (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 issues.
> (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 document introduces two new Class Types for existing RSVP objects. If
approved, these will be allocated from the "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" registry using the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class
Types" sub-registry.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml
In section 5.1 the document does mention that IANA is requested to assign the
same value for "TBD1" and "TBD2" ("SSON FLOWSPEC" & "SSON SENDER_TSPEC"), and a
value of "8" is suggested. It is unclear if this value is due to any prior
implementation, or simply the next available value (following "OTN-TDM") based
on the current sub-registry assignments.
> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
> future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
> would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
> registries.
No new registry was requested.
> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a
> formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions,
> etc.
No such sections.