Multipoint LDP (mLDP) In-Band Signaling with Wildcards
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-01-08
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-01-07
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2015-01-07
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-12-31
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-12-16
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-12-12
|
03 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2014-12-08
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-12-08
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-12-08
|
03 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-12-01
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2014-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-12-01
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-11-27
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-11-27
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-11-27
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-11-26
|
03 | Eric Rosen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-11-26
|
03 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-03.txt |
2014-11-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-11-25
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-11-25
|
02 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-11-25
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-11-25
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-11-24
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-11-24
|
02 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-11-24
|
02 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-11-24
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] For reference, here is the SecDir review, which is pretty clean. Thanks. |
2014-11-24
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-11-24
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-11-24
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-11-23
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Let's imagine that someone defines a way to encrypt MPLS traffic. At that point ought one recommend that the encoding of the IP … [Ballot comment] Let's imagine that someone defines a way to encrypt MPLS traffic. At that point ought one recommend that the encoding of the IP addresses into the opaque value ought also be secure as otherwise that encoding might help an attacker to decide which nodes to attack when or what traffic to attack how. I guess this is not really caused by this wildcard handling at all so I'm not asking that anything be fixed here. But it might be good to look at this cross-layer leakage issue when/if we do start working on MPLS confidentiality. |
2014-11-23
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-11-21
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-11-20
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-11-03
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-10-30
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ólafur Guðmundsson. |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Notification list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org, erosen@juniper.net from mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] The Sec Dir review from Olafur Gumundsson suggests adding a reference to RFC 5036 in the Security Considerations section. --- It may be … [Ballot comment] The Sec Dir review from Olafur Gumundsson suggests adding a reference to RFC 5036 in the Security Considerations section. --- It may be appropriate to update Eric's coordinates |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-10-27
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-10-23
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-10-23
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-10-23
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-11-25 from 2014-10-30 |
2014-10-21
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-10-21
|
02 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-10-16
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-10-16
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2014-10-16
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2014-10-16
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2014-10-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-10-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards' 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 2014-10-27. 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 There are scenarios in which an IP multicast tree traverses an MPLS domain. In these scenarios, it can be desirable to convert the IP multicast tree "seamlessly" to an MPLS multipoint label switched path (MP-LSP) when it enters the MPLS domain, and then to convert it back to an IP multicast tree when it exits the MPLS domain. Previous documents specify procedures that allow certain kinds of IP multicast trees (either "Source-Specific Multicast" trees or "Bidirectional Multicast" trees) to be attached to an MPLS Multipoint Label Switched Path (MP-LSP). However, the previous documents do not specify procedures for attaching IP "Any Source Multicast" trees to MP-LSPs, nor do they specify procedures for aggregating multiple IP multicast trees onto a single MP-LSP. This document specifies the procedures to support these functions. It does so by defining "wildcard" encodings that make it possible to specify, when setting up an MP- LSP, that a set of IP multicast trees, or a shared IP multicast tree, should be attached to that MP-LSP. Support for non-bidirectional IP "Any Source Multicast" trees is subject to certain applicability restrictions that are discussed in this document. This document updates RFCs 6826 and 7246. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-10-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-10-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-10-30 |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-10-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-08-27
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Lizhong Jin. |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS working requests that : … The MPLS working requests that : mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02 is published as an RFC on the standards track. (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? Should this be "specifies protocol, protocol elements and procedures, and updates two standard track RFCs" It should be posted as a Proposed Standard; the document header says "Standards track" (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 There are scenarios in which an IP multicast tree traverses an MPLS domain. It may be desirable to convert the IP multicast tree "seamlessly" to an MPLS multipoint label switched path (MP-LSP) when the multicast tree enters into the the MPLS domain. Similarly, the MP-LSP is converted back to an IP multicast tree when the MPLS domain is exited. Earlier documents specify procedures for certain kinds of IP multicast trees to be attached to an MPLS Multipoint Label Switched Path (MP-LSP). These documents do not specify procedures for attaching IP "Any Source Multicast" trees to MP-LSPs, nor do they specify procedures for aggregating multiple IP multicast trees onto a single MP-LSP. This document specifies the procedures to support these functions. It does so by defining "wildcard" encodings that make it possible to specify, when setting up an MP-LSP, that a set of IP multicast trees, or a shared IP multicast tree, should be attached to that MP-LSP. Support for non-bidirectional IP "Any Source Multicast" trees is subject to certain applicability restrictions that are discussed in this document. This document updates RFCs 6826 and 7246. 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 document and another document (draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp) at the time they were adopted as working group document had a certain overlap. draft-ietf-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp is just being prepared for wglc The overlap was resolved by clearly scoping the two documents, and after that both documents has progressed smoothly. 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? We know of existing implementations of this protocol. We also know of vendors that plan to implement and operators that have deployed the protocol. The level of review for this document is good, it has been reviewed by the shepherd and wg chairs a number of times, it has been through MPLS-RT review, wg adoption poll, wglc and RTG Area Quality Assurance review. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD. (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. This version of the document is ready to for publication. The Document Shepherd has reviewed the entire document three times: when preparing the MPLS-RT, when resolving the WG Adoption Poll comments, and when resolving the WG LC comments. The Document Shepherd also reviewed parts of the document earlier when resolving the overlap mentioned above. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such 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 reviews necessary. (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 issues. (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. All the authors have stated on the MPLS wg mailing that they are unaware of any IPRs related to this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPRs filed against this document. (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 is a strong agreement within the working group that we need a good way of supporting IP Multicast service on P2MP LSPs, this draft is a generic approach to solve this problem and has good support in the working group. (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 such threats. (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. This document passes the nits tool clean. (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 necessary. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (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 the normative references are existing 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. No downward references. (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. This document does not change the status of any other document. (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). This document does not request any IANA actions. (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. This document does not create any new registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. (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 automated reviews. |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | State Change Notice email list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-08-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-08-13
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-08-13
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-08-12
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-08-12
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-08-12
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2014-08-12
|
02 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-02.txt |
2014-08-12
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Implementation poll started |
2014-08-12
|
01 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2014-08-12
|
01 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-08-05
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lizhong Jin |
2014-08-05
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lizhong Jin |
2014-07-21
|
01 | Martin Vigoureux | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
2014-03-04
|
01 | Loa Andersson | This document now replaces draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding instead of None |
2014-03-03
|
01 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-01.txt |
2014-03-03
|
00 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-00.txt |