Skip to main content

OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-05-10
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2018-04-23
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2018-04-16
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-04-16
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA
2018-04-16
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2018-04-16
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2018-04-13
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-04-13
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on ADs
2018-03-27
16 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
2018-03-27
16 Alvaro Retana Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2018-03-12
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT
2018-02-07
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from In Progress
2018-02-05
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-02-05
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2018-02-05
16 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-02-05
16 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-02-05
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2018-02-05
16 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2018-02-05
16 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-02-05
16 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2018-02-05
16 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-02-05
16 Deborah Brungard [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and comment.
2018-02-05
16 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2018-02-04
16 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-16.txt
2018-02-04
16 (System) New version approved
2018-02-04
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler
2018-02-04
16 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2018-01-31
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-01-31
15 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-15.txt
2018-01-31
15 (System) New version approved
2018-01-31
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler
2018-01-31
15 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2018-01-25
14 Michelle Cotton IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2018-01-25
14 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-01-25
14 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Tim, part of the OPS DIR review. It's the authors and responsible AD to decide whether to act on those …
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Tim, part of the OPS DIR review. It's the authors and responsible AD to decide whether to act on those comments.

I believe the document is Ready for publication.  I have only three minor
comments below, which the authors may choose to act on.

Overall the document reads reasonably well. Not being overly familiar with the
material, I needed to read it through end-to-end more than once to better
understand its scope and intent. My first comment would be that perhaps the
introduction section could be better written; the abstract seemed clear on the
purpose of the draft, while the introduction felt a little muddled.  Sections
2, 3 and 4, which detail the motivations and extensions, were much clearer.

Secondly, there are some minor typographic errors throughout the document,
generally missing (in)definite articles.  While the RFC Editor would pick these
up, it would be nice for the authors to have a final pass and fix those before
submission.

Thirdly, the document does not give any advice on the timing of using the
extensions - how far in advance is it recommended to use the extensions? - or
on the return to 'normal' state once the maintenance is completed.  So perhaps
consider adding a short section on this, maybe in Section 5.
2018-01-25
14 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2018-01-24
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-01-24
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-01-24
14 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-14.txt
2018-01-24
14 (System) New version approved
2018-01-24
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler
2018-01-24
14 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2018-01-24
13 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-01-24
13 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2018-01-24
13 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2018-01-24
13 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2018-01-24
13 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2018-01-24
13 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-01-24
13 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2018-01-24
13 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2018-01-24
13 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve.  …
[Ballot comment]
I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve.  The rest are non-blocking comments.

(1) The following should be Normative references: rfc2119 and rfc6987 -- this last one because MaxLinkMetric (which is defined there) is extensively used (as a MUST) throughout the document.

(2) Section 3. (Flooding Scope) provides information about the flooding scope, but only references for OSPFv2.  It would be nice if the references for OSPFv3 were included there as well.

(3) Section 4.5. mentions that a "new TLV called Graceful-Link-Shutdown is defined" for BGP-LS, but there are no details on the format, etc.  The IANA Considerations section suggests a value, not for a TLV but for an NLRI Type! 

(4) Section 5: "The node that has the link to be taken out of service SHOULD advertise the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV..."  When would the node not advertise the sub-TLV?  IOW, why is "MUST" not used?

(5) In 5.1: "MAX-TE-METRIC is a constant defined by this draft and set to 0xfffffffe."  Assuming that the intent is to define a new architectural constant... I would rather see this constant defined separately (in it's own section/sub-section with a formal definition) instead of "in passing" while describing how to use it (a la MaxLinkMetric in rfc6987).

(6) 5.1 says that the metrics "MUST be set to MaxLinkMetric...and SHOULD be set to MAX-TE-METRIC".  Why is there a difference?

(7) s/MAX_METRIC/MaxLinkMetric

[1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
2018-01-24
13 Alvaro Retana Ballot comment text updated for Alvaro Retana
2018-01-24
13 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve.  …
[Ballot comment]
I debated about filing my first comment as a DISCUSS [1], but decided against it because it should be very easy to solve.  The rest are non-blocking comments.

(1) The following should be Normative references: rfc2119 and rfc6987 -- this last one because MaxLinkMetric (which is defined there) is extensively used (as a MUST) throughout the document.

(2) Section 3. (Flooding Scope) provides information about the flooding scope, but only references for OSPFv2.  It would be nice if the references for OSPFv3 were included there as well.

(3) Section 4.5. mentions that a "new TLV called Graceful-Link-Shutdown is defined" for BGP-LS, but there are no details on the format, etc.  The IANA Considerations section suggests a value, not for a TLV but for an NLRI Type! 

(4) Section 5: "The node that has the link to be taken out of service SHOULD advertise the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV..."  When would the node not advertise the sub-TLV?  IOW, why is "MUST" not used?

(5) In 5.1: "MAX-TE-METRIC is a constant defined by this draft and set to 0xfffffffe."  Assuming that the intent is to define a new architectural constant... I would rather see this constant defined separately (in it's own section/sub-section with a formal definition) instead of "in passing" while describing how to use it (a la MaxLinkMetric in rfc6987).

(6) 5.1 says that the metrics "MUST be set to MaxLinkMetric...and SHOULD be set to MAX-TE-METRIC".  Why is there a difference?

(7) s/MAX_METRIC/MaxLinkMetric
2018-01-24
13 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-01-23
13 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2018-01-23
13 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
-8: It would be helpful to see a few sentences about how the security considerations in 2328 and 5340 apply to the mechanisms …
[Ballot comment]
-8: It would be helpful to see a few sentences about how the security considerations in 2328 and 5340 apply to the mechanisms in this draft, rather than just a "no new considerations" assertion.
2018-01-23
13 Ben Campbell Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell
2018-01-23
13 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot discuss]
This document is defining a MAX-TE-METRIC of 0xfffffffe. But RFC5817 defined 0xffffffff to be used for graceful shutdown. I noted an email exchange …
[Ballot discuss]
This document is defining a MAX-TE-METRIC of 0xfffffffe. But RFC5817 defined 0xffffffff to be used for graceful shutdown. I noted an email exchange between the author and Acee on this where Acee raised the question why RFC5817's value was not used. Shraddha replied "We can if we have the Working Group Consensus". There was no further discussion.

This document was not shared with teas which is responsible for TE (or ccamp which was originally responsible for RFC5817).

Either this value needs to be changed to RFC5817's value or this TE metric needs to be removed from this document until agreement with TEAS.
2018-01-23
13 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2018-01-22
13 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. …
[Ballot comment]
I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. It is not "TE" in the IETF sense e.g. TE signaling. It would be much less confusing if say "Controller Based Deployments" and "satisfying the traffic engineering constraints"/s/"satisfying the constraints". Especially as for TE, procedures already do exist.  I noted in the introduction you did reference RFC5817 MPLS Graceful Shutdown on the procedures when doing a graceful shutdown of a TE link.
2018-01-22
13 Deborah Brungard Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard
2018-01-22
13 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. …
[Ballot comment]
I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a path. It is not "TE" in the IETF sense e.g. TE signaling. It would be much less confusing if say "Controller Based Deployments" and "satisfying the traffic engineering constraints"/s/"satisfying the constraints". Especially as for TE, procedures already do exist.  I noted you did reference RFC5817 MPLS Graceful Shutdown on the procedures when doing a graceful shutdown of a TE link.
2018-01-22
13 Deborah Brungard Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard
2018-01-22
13 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-01-22
13 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-01-22
13 Tim Chown Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tim Chown. Sent review to list.
2018-01-21
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-01-21
13 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13.txt
2018-01-21
13 (System) New version approved
2018-01-21
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler
2018-01-21
13 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2018-01-18
12 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2018-01-18
12 Joel Halpern Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2018-01-18
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2018-01-18
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2018-01-18
12 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]
I think this document would be clearer if the example in S 7.1 were
in the intro. I was scratching my head a …
[Ballot comment]
I think this document would be clearer if the example in S 7.1 were
in the intro. I was scratching my head a bit at the beginning and
then got to 7.1 and it made more sense.
2018-01-18
12 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2018-01-18
12 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2018-01-18
12 Alia Atlas Ballot has been issued
2018-01-18
12 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2018-01-18
12 Alia Atlas Created "Approve" ballot
2018-01-18
12 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was changed
2018-01-16
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-01-16
12 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12.txt
2018-01-16
12 (System) New version approved
2018-01-16
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler
2018-01-16
12 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2018-01-16
11 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-01-12
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2018-01-12
11 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document:

draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/

the following temporary registrations will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Value: 7
Description: Link-Overload Sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 8
Description: Remote IPv4 Address Sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 9
Description: Local/Remote Interface ID Sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in a registry to be created upon the approval of another draft, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend, the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV Registry, a new value will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Link Overload Sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested the value of 7 for this registration.

Third, in the BGP-LS NLRI-Types registry on the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/

the following temporary registration will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Type: 1101
NLRI Type: Link-Overload TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2018-01-04
11 Sean Turner Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sean Turner. Sent review to list.
2018-01-04
11 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2018-01-04
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2018-01-04
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2018-01-02
11 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-01-02
11 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, ospf@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, ospf@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , acee@cisco.com, ospf-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPF Link Overload) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document: - 'OSPF Link Overload'
  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 2018-01-16. 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


  When a link is being prepared to be taken out of service, the traffic
  needs to be diverted from both ends of the link.  Increasing the
  metric to the highest metric on one side of the link is not
  sufficient to divert the traffic flowing in the other direction.

  It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be
  able to advertise a link as being in an overload state to indicate
  impending maintenance activity on the link.  This information can be
  used by the network devices to re-route the traffic effectively.

  This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate link-
  overload information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/ballot/

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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2577/





2018-01-02
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-01-02
11 Alia Atlas Last call was requested
2018-01-02
11 Alia Atlas Last call announcement was generated
2018-01-02
11 Alia Atlas Ballot approval text was generated
2018-01-02
11 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was generated
2018-01-02
11 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-01-01
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-01-01
11 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11.txt
2018-01-01
11 (System) New version approved
2018-01-01
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler
2018-01-01
11 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-12-31
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown
2017-12-31
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown
2017-12-28
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner
2017-12-28
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner
2017-12-22
10 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux.
2017-12-21
10 Joel Halpern Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2017-12-20
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2017-12-20
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2017-12-19
10 Alia Atlas
As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.  First, I would like to thank the authors - Shraddha, Pushpasis, Hannes, Mohan, and …
As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.  First, I would like to thank the authors - Shraddha, Pushpasis, Hannes, Mohan, and Luay - as well as the WG for their hard work on this document.

I have several minor comments that should be resolved before it goes to IETF Last Call.

1) Personally, not having all of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 readily in my head, I would find it helpful to have some examples where the Link Type, Link ID, and Link Data aren't enough to differentiate the parallel links.  I am, of course, familiar with this issue for IS-IS - but I don't recall running into when implementing LFA.  I would find it useful to see some examples of a topology with the LSA with TLV & sub-TLVs to handle some of the cases - particularly interacting with parallel links.

2) If there is the issue with parallel links, why isn't there a remote IPv6 address sub-TLV for use with OSPFv3?

3) The Remote IPv4 address and Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLVs imply that they are narrowing the scope of the Extended Link Opaque TLV  from multiple parallel links to one.  However, there is no specific wording explaining how they would be generally applied (and yet the naming implies that they might be) or the implications for other sub-TLVs that might be included or how to handle the new need for multiple Extended Link Opaque TLVs that aren't supported in RFC 7684.    From RFC 7684, it is clear that: " If multiple OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs include the same link, the attributes from the Opaque LSA with the lowest Opaque ID will be used." and that there should be only one Extended Link TLV.

For instance, what happens if a SID sub-TLV is also specified?  What if a SID sub-TLV was specified in an Extended Link TLV - and now the router wants to advertise a link-overload for only one of the particularly parallel links?
2017-12-19
10 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2017-12-19
10 Alia Atlas Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-01-25
2017-12-18
10 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-12-13
10 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    …
(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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 document specifies extensions to OSPFv3 Prefix/Link attributes
      LSA and the OSPFv3 Extended-Router-LSA to indicate that a link is
      going to be taken out of service and traffic using the link should
      be discouraged but not prevented as a last resort. Multiple service
      providers expressed interest and some are authors.

Working Group Summary:

      There was considerable discussion on both the use case and whether
      we could use signaling amongst the routers on the link. However,
      this would not allow a controller to be informed. Additionally,
      there was discussion as to whether this could simply inferred from
      a high forward metric. After some discussion, it was agreed explicit
      signaling was preferred.

      Additionally, there was some intertwining of requirements with the
      signaling of other OSPF link attributes. Now that these are resolved
      we can move forward with this draft.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for more a years. There have
      been several iterations due to the controversy over area-wide versus
      neighbor signaling. Now that we have reached consensus, the document
      is fairly stable from a protocol standpoint. There has been some
      discussion on the use cases and they have been refined in the current
      version. 

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas 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 reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. The document
    shepherd fully believes that we have reached consensus and that the
    document can move forward.


(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.

      None.

(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.

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

      No.

(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 consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(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.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

(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?
 
      No. Publication has been requested for the "OSPFv3 Extended LSAs"
      draft.

(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.

(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 draft request code points from existing OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and
    BGP-LS registries. Early allocation will be requested to encourage
    implementation.

    A link-overload Sub-TLV is requested from both the OSPFv2
    Prefix/Link Attribute TLV and the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs
    registry. Additionally, Remote-IPv4 address and Local/Remote
    Interface ID Sub-TLVs are requested for OSPFv2 since OSPFv2 doesn't
    handle unique identification of parallel links between OSPFv2
    routers.

    Finally, a BGP-LS TLV code point is request for Link-Overload for
    the a BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLV.
 
(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.

    Not applicable.

(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.
2017-12-13
10 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas
2017-12-13
10 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2017-12-13
10 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-12-13
10 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-12-06
10 Acee Lindem Changed document writeup
2017-11-29
10 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Martin Vigoureux
2017-11-29
10 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Martin Vigoureux
2017-11-29
10 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2017-11-26
10 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt
2017-11-26
10 (System) New version approved
2017-11-26
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Luay Jalil , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler
2017-11-26
10 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-11-07
09 Acee Lindem Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-11-07
09 Acee Lindem Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-11-07
09 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
2017-11-07
09 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem
2017-08-14
09 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-09.txt
2017-08-14
09 (System) New version approved
2017-08-14
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Gredler , Shraddha Hegde , Mohan Nanduri , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil
2017-08-14
09 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-07-27
08 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-08.txt
2017-07-27
08 (System) New version approved
2017-07-17
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Gredler , Shraddha Hegde , Mohan Nanduri , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil
2017-07-17
08 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-07-02
07 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt
2017-07-02
07 (System) New version approved
2017-07-02
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Shraddha Hegde , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil , Hannes Gredler , Mohan Nanduri , ospf-chairs@ietf.org
2017-07-02
07 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-04-19
06 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-06.txt
2017-04-19
06 (System) New version approved
2017-04-19
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Hannes Gredler , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil
2017-04-19
06 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-02-23
05 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
2017-02-23
05 (System) New version approved
2017-02-23
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohan Nanduri , Shraddha Hegde , Hannes Gredler , Pushpasis Sarkar , Luay Jalil
2017-02-23
05 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-02-18
04 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-04.txt
2017-02-18
04 (System) New version approved
2017-02-18
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Shraddha Hegde" , "Pushpasis Sarkar" , "Mohan Nanduri" , "Hannes Gredler" , "Luay Jalil"
2017-02-18
04 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-02-12
03 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03.txt
2017-02-12
03 (System) New version approved
2017-02-12
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Shraddha Hegde" , "Pushpasis Sarkar" , "Mohan Nanduri" , "Hannes Gredler" , "Luay Jalil"
2017-02-12
03 Shraddha Hegde Uploaded new revision
2017-01-08
02 (System) Document has expired
2016-07-07
02 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-02.txt
2016-01-06
01 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-01.txt
2015-10-28
00 Acee Lindem This document now replaces draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload instead of None
2015-10-19
00 Shraddha Hegde New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-00.txt