Interworking Requirements to Support Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-04

[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss discuss.  Personally, I find the phased migration model terrifying.  Selective
introduction of features seems like a great opportunity to perform a DoS attack on your own
network.  Are there features of GMPLS that assume the existence of other features for consistent
operation?  It seems like you are developing your own interim internal "standards" that need
to be self-consistent.  Is this really a good thing for the IETF to recommend?

[Ballot discuss]
This from Niclas Comstedt of OPS-DIR:

Overall it looks good and cover all the obvious things I can think of to
make it work with a reasonable level of complexity. I would have liked to
see links/bundle size added to the scalability section 3.9 since I don't
believe nodes and LSPs alone are the main scaling metrics.

PROTO Write-up

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?

This is a fairly old document. In its early days it had substantial
review and discussion. More recently the level of input has tailed off
probably because the draft was largely technically complete. The last
few revisions of the I-D have been largely editorial working to improve
the readability and presentaiton.

Although the I-D has had no explicit review from the MPLS working group
most of the people concerned with the operation of MPLS-TE networks over
GMPLS networks are participants in CCAMP.

> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
> e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
> AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> this issue.

The document is sound.

The document filename is easily confused with
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk that is also going to the
IESG for publication at this time. But the document titles are
sufficiently different to avoid confusion.

> (1.e) 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 working group has indicated is understanding and support for the
requirements expressed in this I-D. The solution model described has
not drawn any unfavorable comments.

> (1.f) 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
> entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats. No discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See
> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

All checks made.


> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? 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
> strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
> so, list these downward references to support the Area
> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References split.
No downrefs.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document? If the document specifies protocol
> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
> registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
> the document creates a new registry, does it define the
> proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
> procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
> document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
> can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This is an Informational I-D.
A null IANA section is present.

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
> an automated checker?

No such sections.

> (1.k) 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.

Operation of a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic
engineering (TE) network as a client network to a Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) network has enhanced operational capabilities compared to
those provided by a co-existent protocol model (ships in the night).

The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may
itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet
technologies. An MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and
terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network
provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP.

This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements
for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks.

> 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?

Nothing of note.

> 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 is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications.
The authors list demonstrates interest from providers in this mode of
network operation.

Much of the material in this document was based on draft-kumaki-ccamp-
mpls-gmpls-interworking-01.txt that had input from Cisco Systems.
Several vendors are believed to implement MPLS-TE over GMPLS in this way
and GMPLS interoperablity events are usually achieved using this model.