OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-10

[Ballot comment]
Suresh Krishnan made some suggestions that I agree with in his Gen-ART review. The authors are looking into the comments, and hopefully they are given a chance to do so before the document is sent off to the RFC-Editor.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-09.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Types for sub-TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV (Value 5) subregistry of the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/

a new TLV is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Sub-TLV: Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2) subregistry of the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/

a new TLV is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Sub-TLV: Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints'
  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 2015-02-26. 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

  Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) can be used to
  control a wide variety of technologies including packet switching
  (e.g., MPLS), time-division (e.g., SONET/SDH, Optical Transport
  Network (OTN)), wavelength (lambdas), and spatial switching (e.g.,
  incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). In some of these
  technologies, network elements and links may impose additional
  routing constraints such as asymmetric switch connectivity, non-
  local label assignment, and label range limitations on links. This
  document describes Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol
  extensions to support these kinds of constraints under the control
  of GMPLS.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te/ballot/


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

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1697/

AD review
=======

Authors!

I have done my usual AD review of this document to prepare it for
IETF last call and IESG evaluation. It's in good shape and my comments
below are nearly completely editorial.

Please have a look and let me know if you disagree. Otherwise, post a
new revision and I'll take the document forward.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

---

You need to split the Authors' Addresses sections into:
- Authors' Addresses reflecting those on the front page
- Contributors containing all the others

---

Section 1 has:

  The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1)
  Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute
  defined in Section 2.

Shouldn't this be:

  The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1)
  Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute
  [RFC5786].

---

We need to do some work on the IANA stuff.

In Section 2, please replace

OLD
  Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to
  the Node Attribute TLV as defined in [RFC5786]. Detailed description
  for each newly defined Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections:

      Sub-TLV Type      Length        Name

      14 (Suggested)    variable      Connectivity Matrix
NEW
  Per [GEN-Encode], this document defines the Connectivity Matrix Sub-
  TLV of the Node Attribute TLV defined in [RFC5786].  The new Sub-TLV
  has Type TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA).
END


In Section 3, please replace

OLD
  Per [GEN-Encode], we add the following additional link sub-TLVs to
  the link TLV in this document.

      Sub-TLV Type      Length        Name

      26 (suggested)    variable      Port Label Restrictions
NEW
  Per [GEN-Encode], this document defines the Port Label Restrictions
  Sub-TLV of the Link TLV defined in [RFC3630].  The new Sub-TLV has
  Type TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA).
END


In Section 7.1, please replace

OLD
  This document defines a new sub-TLV of the Node Attribute TLV (Value
  5). The assignment of the following new type in the "Types for sub-
  TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV" portion of the "Open Shortest Path
  First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry is needed:

  This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of Node Attribute
  TLV (Value 5):

      Type                                      sub-TLV

      14 (suggested, to be assigned by IANA)    Connectivity Matrix
NEW
  IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
  Engineering TLVs" registry with a sub-registry called "Types for sub-
  TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV".  IANA is requested to assign a new
  code point as follows:

      Type  |  Sub-TLV                      |  Reference
      -------+-------------------------------+------------
      TBD1  |  Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV  |  [This.I-D]

END

In Section 7.2, please replace

OLD
  This document defines a new sub-TLV of the TE Link TLV (Value 2).
  The assignment of the following new type in the "Types for sub-TLVs
  of TE Link TLV" portion of the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
  Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry is needed:

      Type                                      sub-TLV

      26 (suggested, to be assigned by IANA)    Port Label Restrictions
NEW
  IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
  Engineering TLVs" registry with a sub-registry called "Types for sub-
  TLVs of TE Link TLV".  IANA is requested to assign a new code point
  as follows:

      Type  |  Sub-TLV                          |  Reference
      -------+-----------------------------------+------------
      TBD2  |  Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV  |  [This.I-D]
END

---

I think Section 6 should also reference 5250 since Opaque LSAs are,
themselves, an attack vector.

---

Did you consider including a short manageability section?

Are there any existing management tools that are impacted by the new
sub-TLVs?

What might a user expect to configure related to these sub-TLVs?

What might a user expect to be able to read from a device?

Write up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te

> 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)?

Standards Track

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

The document defines OSPF related formats and behaviors.

> 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.

  This document describes Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing
  protocol extensions to support these kinds of constraints under the
  control of GMPLS.  Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
  can be used to control a wide variety of technologies including
  packet switching (e.g., MPLS), time-division (e.g., SONET/SDH,
  Optical Transport Network (OTN)), wavelength (lambdas), and spatial
  switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or
  fiber). In some of these technologies, network elements and links may
  impose additional routing constraints such as asymmetric switch
  connectivity, non- local label assignment, and label range
  limitations on links.

> 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?

This topic been discussed in the WG for a very long time, perhaps 6
years.  Support for the work has been tepid, but there are multiple
sets of contributors who would like to see the work result in proposed
standards.

> 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?

The base GMPLS routing protocol has been implemented.  The extensions
defined in this document are compatible with earlier implementations.
Multiple implementors have stated their intent to implement, or have
stated that they have already implemented, the mechanisms defined in
this document.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel

> (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 it has progressed
through the CCAMP WG, including as part of an extended WG last calls.
The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. This
document is part of a set of documents on WSON and final publication --
and at the AD's discretion, IETF LC -- should occur as a set.
The documents set includes:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
    draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
    draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
    draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te
    draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf
    draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling

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

No. 

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
> took place.

As part of the 2nd WG LC, both the OSPF WGs chairs were consulted, and
one provided comments.

> (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, via messages to/on the CCAMP WG list.

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

yes, IPR has been disclosed for this document.  A related discussion
took place on the info document, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13081.html

No suggestion of changing the WG document solution resulted from the
discussion. 

> (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? 

Good among interested parties. No objections from others.

> (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.)

Not to my knowledge.

> (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 tools idnits.

> (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?

None.

> (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.

> (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.  Two new
allocations are requested in this document in registries that are
properly identified.

> (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 registries are 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.

N/A.

Prepration for WG last call. Updated September 16th 2013

IPR declariations still missing
xuyunbin at mail.ritt.com.cn(...),
minc at huawei.com(...),

IPR declarations received:
gregb at grotto-networking.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15253.html),
zhangfatai at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14991.html),
ylee at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14986.html),
hanjianrui at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15163.html),
zhangguoying at mail.ritt.com.cn(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15157.html),
danli at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14992.html),
yabin.ye at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15145.html)

Prepration for WG last call.

IPR declariations.
zhangfatai at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14991.html),
ylee at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14986.html),
hanjianrui at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15163.html),
gregb at grotto-networking.com(...),
xuyunbin at mail.ritt.com.cn(...),
zhangguoying at mail.ritt.com.cn(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15157.html),
danli at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14992.html),
minc at huawei.com(...),
yabin.ye at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15145.html)

Prepration for WG last call. IPR declariations.

zhangfatai at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14991.html),
ylee at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14986.html),
hanjianrui at huawei.com(...),
gregb at grotto-networking.com(...),
xuyunbin at mail.ritt.com.cn(...),
zhangguoying at mail.ritt.com.cn(...),
danli at huawei.com(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14992.html),
minc at huawei.com(...),
yabin.ye at huawei.com(...)