Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-16

[Ballot comment]

- 2.1.1, is there any chance of moving on from the "Keyed SHA1"
from RFC5880 to e.g. HMAC-SHA256 for this? We're generally trying
to get that kind of transition done as we can and moving to use of
a standard integrity check rather than a more home-grown one
has some benefits. The HMAC-SHA1-like thing you're doing is
still probably ok, (though could maybe do with crypto eyeballs
on it as there may have been relevant new results since 2010)
but future-proofing would suggest moving to HMAC-SHA256 if we
can. (I can imagine such a change might require a new document,
but am asking anyway:-)

- 2.1.1, I'd recommend saying any password auth-type MUST NOT
be used - would that be possible?

- section 6 - what "established secure key-exchange protocol"
is available to use here?

- (this is sort of off-topic) I find an architecture like this
where a packet traversing a network has quite so many
side-effects a bit hard to grok. Do you have a pointer to
something (not too long:-) that explains the consequences of
that?

[Ballot comment]
I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits:

Comment:
=========
- 4.1, paragraph 3:
Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be have sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements?  (And if so, is there a reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?)

Nits:
====
-1, paragraph 1:
Missing "the" before "MPLS Transport Profile "

- 1.0, last paragraph, last two sentences:
Who are “we” in these sentences? Does it make sense to talk about what “we” are or are not “configuring”?

2.1.1, first bullet in first list:
consider s/"both sides should be"/"both sides are"

-4.1, 2nd paragraph, first sentence:
Missing words? (What is IANA requested to do with the TLV? I assume register it. Also, what is the name of the new TLV?
Consider a cross-reference to table to for "this sub-registry"

-4.2: "Assignments of bit positions 0 through 31"
If I read correctly, that's all the bits. Is this the same as saying the registry itself requires standards-action?

-5:
It's mildly odd to find the acknowledgements section between two substantive sections.

-6, first paragraph:
Should "liveliness" be "liveness"?

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are four actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the TLV codepoint subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a new TLV from the standards action range (0-16383).

Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
TLV Name: MPLS OAM Functions
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Sub-TLV Registry [ see below]

Second, for the TLV created in step one above, a new subregistry will be created called "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type (type number from step 1, above). The reference for the Sub-TLV registry will be [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that the registration procedures will be those outlined for TLVs and Sub-TLVs by RFC 4379. If this is not correct, please let us know.

The new Sub-TLV registry will be populated as follows:

+----------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| Sub-type | Sub-TLV Name | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| 0-99 | Unassigned
| 100 | BFD Configuration | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 101 | BFD Local Discriminator | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 102 | BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 103 | BFD Authentication | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 104 | Traffic Class | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 105-199 | Unassigned
| 200 | Performance Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 201 | PM Loss Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 202 | PM Delay Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 203-299 | Unassigned
| 300 | Fault Management Signal | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 301-399 | Unassigned
| 400 | Source MEP-ID | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 401-31743 | Unassigned
| 31744-32767 | Reserved for Private Use | RFC-to-be |
| 32768- 64511 | Unassigned
| 64512-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | RFC-to-be |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------------+

Third, IANA will create a registry called MPLS OAM Function Flags. This will be a subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

The new registry is to be maintained via Standards Action as defined in RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

| Bit Position | MPLS OAM Function Flag | Description | Reference |
+---------+---------------------+----------+---------+
| 0 | C | Continuity Check (CC) | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1 | V | Connectivity Verification (CV) | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2 | F | Fault Management Signal (FMS) | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3 | L | Performance Measurement/Loss (PM/Loss)  | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4 | D | Performance Measurement/Delay (PM/Delay) | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5 | T | Throughput Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6-30 | | Unassigned (Must be zero) | |
| 31 | | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] |

Fourth, in the Return Codes subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

twelve new return codes are to be registered as follows:

OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Version  [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Encapsulation format
OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Authentication Type [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD Authentication Key ID [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Unsupported Timestamp Format [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay Mode [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss Mode [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Dyadic mode unsupported [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Loopback mode unsupported [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Combined mode unsupported [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Fault management signaling unsupported [ RFC-to-be ]
OAM Problem/Unable to create fault management association [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors request that these values be from the Standards Action range (0-191).

IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones 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 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:  (Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
  (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using LSP Ping'
  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 2015-10-20. 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 specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP
  Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a
  given Label Switched Path (LSP) using a set of TLVs that are carried
  by the LSP-Ping protocol.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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?

  Proposed Standard.

(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 specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP
  Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a
  given Label Switched Path (LSP) using a set of TLVs that are carried
  by the LSP-Ping protocol. In particular it specifies the mechanisms
  necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities at the maintenance points
  for monitoring and performing measurements on an LSP, as well as
  defining information elements and procedures to configure proactive
  MPLS-TP OAM functions running between LERs.

Working Group Summary

  The WG process was smooth and without controversy. It was
  necessary to repeat the working group last call in order to
  ensure sufficient review and comment.

Document Quality

  The document has been carefully reviewed and updated based on
  review and last call comments. There is also some related
  implementation work in progress.

Personnel

  Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the
  Responsible Area Director.

(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 read the document and sent comments
  to the author on at least two occasions, and the document has gone
  through two working group last calls with constructive comments
  both times. The shepherd has verified that WGLC and his comments
  have been addressed.

(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.

  no.

(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, all authors have confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
  has been disclosed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

  No IPR disclosures have been posted on the document (nor on
  the individual draft that preceded it).

(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? 

  Those who are interested are solidly in support of this draft. There
  does appear to be only a moderate amount of interest although
  authors include experts from multiple major vendors.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  no threats, no hints of any discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.

  IDnits runs cleanly.

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

  not applicable.

(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 normative references are to RFCs.

(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.

  All normative references are to standards track RFCs.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

  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 considerations look complete and well done, and were
  updated based on shepherd comments and subsequent discussions
  among the authors.

(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.

  not applicable.