Skip to main content

MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Pseudowire (PW) Status Refresh Reduction for Static PWs
draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-10-20
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-08-31
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-08-28
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2017-08-07
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2017-07-11
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-07-10
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2017-07-10
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2017-07-05
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2017-07-05
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC
2017-07-03
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from In Progress
2017-06-29
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-06-29
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-06-29
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-06-29
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-06-29
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-06-29
05 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-06-29
05 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-06-29
05 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2017-06-29
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2017-06-29
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
2017-06-29
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alia Atlas has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2017-05-11
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-05-11
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-05-11
05 Luca Martini New version available: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-05.txt
2017-05-11
05 (System) New version approved
2017-05-10
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Martini , Elisa Bellagamba , George Swallow
2017-05-10
05 Luca Martini Uploaded new revision
2017-04-13
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup
2017-04-12
04 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-04-12
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-04-12
04 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-04-12
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-04-12
04 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot comment]
(important) nit in section 8.5:
s/PW Sytatus Refresh Reduction/PW Status Refresh Reduction/
2017-04-12
04 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-04-12
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
8.3. PW Status Refresh Reduction Notification Codes

  IANA needs to set up a registry of "PW status refresh reduction
  Notification Codes". …
[Ballot comment]
8.3. PW Status Refresh Reduction Notification Codes

  IANA needs to set up a registry of "PW status refresh reduction
  Notification Codes". These are 32-bit values. Type value 0 through 7
  are defined in this document. Type values 8 through 65536, and
  134,217,729 through 4,294,967,294 are to be assigned by IANA using
  the "Expert Review" policy defined in RFC5226. Type values 65536
  through 134,217,728, 0 and 4,294,967,295 are to be allocated using
  the IETF review policy defined in [RFC5226].

  For each value assigned IANA should also track whether the value
  constitutes an error as described in Section 5.1. When values are
  assigned by IETF Review, the setting of this column must be
  documented in the RFC that requests the allocation. For Expert Review
  and FCFS assignments, the setting of this column must be made clear
  by the requester at the time of assignment.

FCFS policy is not used in this document, so it shouldn't be mentioned. Or possibly you meant "IETF Review" here?
2017-04-12
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-04-11
04 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]

S 1.

  Periodic retransmission
  of non-zero status messages, and a simple acknowledge of PW status

"acknowledgement", perhaps?

S 2.
I found …
[Ballot comment]

S 1.

  Periodic retransmission
  of non-zero status messages, and a simple acknowledge of PW status

"acknowledgement", perhaps?

S 2.
I found the state machine here a bit hard to follow. Some sort of
diagram might help.


S 4.
This is kind of an odd recommendation for how to generate the session
ID. Why not just Hash(timer) rather than hash of an ASCII formatted
date?


S 5.
      The C Bit is used to signal the end of PW configuration
      transmission. If it is set, the sending PE has finished sending
      all it’s current configuration information.

"its"

Is last received sequence number a cumulative ack or the temporarally
last received packet?


S 5.2
Is Length the remaining length or the length of the entire TLV?
2017-04-11
04 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-04-11
04 Alia Atlas
[Ballot discuss]
0) The intended scope of this protocol is not clearly specified in the Abstract or Introduction.  By
    looking at RFC 6478 …
[Ballot discuss]
0) The intended scope of this protocol is not clearly specified in the Abstract or Introduction.  By
    looking at RFC 6478, I can see that the original method (and hence the optimization) is for
    static pseudo-wires.  However, in the introduction, it says " When PWs use a Multi Protocol
  Label Switched (MPLS) network as the Packet Switched Network (PSN), they are setup according
  to [RFC8077] static configuration mode and the PW status information is propagated
  using the method described in [RFC6478]."    Looking at RFC8077 - I see a single line about static
  assignment.

  From reading the abstract & introduction, I cannot tell whether this technology applies to:
      a) statically configured PWs across a dynamically controlled PSN
      b) statically configured PWs across an MPLS-TP network
      c) any PWs across a dynamically controlled PSN
      d)  any PWs across an MPLS-TP network
  I'm sure that the authors and WG have a clearly understood scoping - but  it isn't obvious, even
  after scanning references to me.  I think that it is intended for "statically configured PWs" because
  if LDP were used to create the PWs, there would be information about the PW status in LDP so this
  mechanism (optimizing the mechanism that is in RFC 6478) is only needed for statically configured PWs.

1) In Sec 2, it states "A PE using the PW status refresh reduction protocol MUST send the PW
  status refresh reduction Message as soon as a PW is configured on a
  particular LSP. " 
      I have several questions as I think about implementing this and dig into the nuances.  As it
      is stated, I think it has issues.
      a) Is the assumption that a PE will use the PW status reduction protocol for every LSP it has?
            Wouldn't that depend on the egress of the LSP & specifics of configuration?  This MUST
          removes such flexibility without any discussion.
      b) Do you mean the PW status refresh reduction message MUST be sent as soon as the first PW
          is configured on an LSP?  If this is for every new PW without consideration for dampening,
          I could see a new configuration being loaded, processed, and resulting in a flood of PW status
          refresh reduction messages.  Surely there should be a maximum rate at least.

2) In Sec 3: "If the refresh reduction protocol session is terminated by entering
  the INACTIVE or STARTUP states, the PE MUST immediately re-send all
  the previously sent PW status messages for that particular LSP for
  which the session terminated. In this case the refresh timer value
  MUST NOT be set to zero, and MUST be set according to the local
  policy of the PE router."
  This MUST forces a flood of messages.  Is there a reason that the PW status messages
  shouldn't be staggered out in time based upon 2x the refresh timer for PW status messages?
  At a minimum, something like "the PE SHOULD re-send .... as soon as possible and MUST
  resent them within .... interval" would be safer for the spiked load.
2017-04-11
04 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]
1) In Sec 5.2.1: "5.2.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel ID

  This TLV contains the MPLS-TP tunnel ID. When the configuration
  message is used …
[Ballot comment]
1) In Sec 5.2.1: "5.2.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel ID

  This TLV contains the MPLS-TP tunnel ID. When the configuration
  message is used for a particular keepalive session the MPLS-TP Tunnel
  ID sub-TLV MUST be sent at least once.

  The MPLS Tunnel ID "
    This is the first mention of MPLS-TP rather than MPLS and the section
  isn't consistent.  I would assume that this is intended to be the MPLS Tunnel ID,
  except a reference later on is to MPLS-TP Identifiers.  Looking at that, it's the
  same thing I'd expect for MPLS.  I think that the fix here is a typo and a paragraph
  explaining that the same format of Tunnel ID works for MPLS and MPLS-TP and that
  there is no implication of this working only for MPLS-TP tunnels.

Nit:

a) Sec 4: "Last Received Message Sequence Number
      The sequence number of the last message received. In no message"
  should be "If no message"
2017-04-11
04 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-04-11
04 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Yaron's comment from the SecDir review.  We shouldn't refer back to old security considerations sections, but rather revisit the considerations …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Yaron's comment from the SecDir review.  We shouldn't refer back to old security considerations sections, but rather revisit the considerations with current threats.
2017-04-11
04 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-04-11
04 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
From Dan's Gen-ART review:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In section 8, first paragraph: s/rages/ranges/
2. In sections 8.3, 8.4 the construct "IETF Review" is …
[Ballot comment]
From Dan's Gen-ART review:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In section 8, first paragraph: s/rages/ranges/
2. In sections 8.3, 8.4 the construct "IETF Review" is worded in three
different ways (IETF review, IETF Review, "IETF Review") - better
align
2017-04-11
04 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-04-10
04 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Benoit re: Jürgen's review.

I was also quite confused by:
" In order to get a locally unique session ID, …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Benoit re: Jürgen's review.

I was also quite confused by:
" In order to get a locally unique session ID, the recommended choice is to perform a CRC-16 giving as input the following data
      |Y|Y|M|M|D|D|H|H|M|M|S|S|L|L|L|

      Where:  YY: are the decimal two last digit of the current year
      MM: are the decimal two digit of the current month DD: are the
      decimal two digit of the current day HHMMSSLLL: are the decimal
      digits of the current time expressed in (hour, minutes, seconds,
      milliseconds) ... Any other method to
      generate a locally unique session ID is also acceptable."

Is the pipe character intended to mean concatenation? Or is it just for formatting?
If the former, why isn't this "YY|MM|DD|HHMMSSLLL" (or "YY|MM|DD|HH|MM|SS|LLL")?
Is this just CRC-16 (170410124223001)? An example would help...
Actually, this says that it is a "locally unique session ID" and that any other method is also acceptable, so why is any algorithm specified?
2017-04-10
04 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-04-10
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-04-10
04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Jürgen in his OPS-DIR review:

Section 1.2 is not really about terminology but instead it basically
expands acronyms. The section …
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Jürgen in his OPS-DIR review:

Section 1.2 is not really about terminology but instead it basically
expands acronyms. The section does not define any terms or does it
make it clear where terms are defined. A reader who does not know
T-PE
will not be pointed to a document that defines 'Terminating Provider
Edge Node of MS-PW'. I usally find terminology sections more useful
if
they say where definitions of terms get be found.

Section 3: s/the the/the/

Section 4: What is the 'Version' field in the message format?

Section 4: There is an 8-bit field marked U C Flags and I _assume_
the
U and C bits are the 'first' two bits and the 'remaining bits are the
flags managed by IANA. Perhaps make this clearer, e.g.:

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |  Last Received Seq Number    | Message Type  |U|C|  Flags  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Or alternatively simply name the entire 8-bit flags field like you do
in the text where you refer to Message Flags and then explain in the
text under the 'Message Flags' that the first two bits have a fixed
meaning.

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |  Last Received Seq Number    | Message Type  | Message Flags |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

This option carries less information but then you use 'Message Flags'
in several places and you also request an IANA registry for Message
Flags where the U and C bit are allocated. Looking at the IANA text,
it says 'bit position' 0 and 1. Not sure this is clear enough, you
seem to number bits in the order 0, 1, 2, ...

It turns out we have several slightly different labels further down
in
the document for this flags field throughout the document - this
makes
searching in the text difficult, please use a single consistent name
for this message field.

Section 8.2 says values 1 and 2 are defined in this document but then
it seems value 3 is also allocated, no?

Subsections of section 8 switches several times between decimal and
hexadecimal numbers. Perhaps things get clearer if a single number
system (e.g., hexadecimal) is used when talking about a specific
registry. Numbers like 134,217,728 look somewhat confusing, 0x8000000
seems simpler.
2017-04-10
04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-04-09
04 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
In this text,

    -iii. If the new value is smaller then the original one, the PE
          …
[Ballot comment]
In this text,

    -iii. If the new value is smaller then the original one, the PE
            will operate according to the original timer value for a
            period 3.5 times the original timer value, or until the
            first valid PW status refresh reduction message is received.

Perhaps it would be helpful to explain the choice of 3.5, so that if this mechanism is deployed for a network where that number is the wrong number, people will know how to adjust it?

There are several occurrences where s/then/than/ is needed, I think. I spotted at least 3.

Other nits …
S/octetc/octets/
S/RECOMENDED/RECOMMENDED/
S/vaules/values/

In section 7. Security Considerations

  The security considerations of [RFC6478] are adequate for the
  proposed mechanism since the operating environment is almost
  identical to the one where this protocol would be deployed. It should
  also be noted that since this protocol is designed to be deployed
  between two adjacent PEs connected by a physical link, it is not
  possible to misdirect or inject traffic without compromising the PW
  transport link itself. All these situations are covered in the
  security considerations of [RFC6478].

There's an appeal to physical adjacency as a defensive mechanism. If this protocol is deployed in a tunnel over UDP, would “physical adjacency” still be true?
2017-04-09
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-04-09
04 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2017-04-09
04 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-04-09
04 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2017-04-09
04 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2017-04-09
04 Deborah Brungard


(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?  …


(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.

The title page header says Standard 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

  This document describes a method for generating an aggregated
  pseudowire status message on Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
  network Label Switched Path (LSP).

  The method for transmitting the pseudowire (PW) status information is
  not new, however this protocol extension allows a Service Provider
  (SP) to reliably monitor the individual PW status while not
  overwhelming the network with multiple periodic status messages. This
  is achieved by sending a single cumulative summary status
  verification message for all the PWs grouped in the same LSP.

Working Group Summary

  The working groups has been working on this for about five years. It
  has discussed it a number of times and supports publication.

Document Quality

  This is a well written document.

  There has been industry interest but we are not sure how widely
  it has been implimented. It is not uncommon in this area
  for RFC to preceed implementation.

Personnel

  Stewart Bryant 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.

  I have read every word of the text, and gave feedback to the
  authors before issing the WG LC on the updated version.

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

  I am satisfied that this document as been adequately reviewed.

(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.

  There is nothing special about this documnet that needs other
  than the normal directorate reviews as the next stage.

(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.

  I have no concerns about publishing this document.

(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 they have.

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

  There is one IPR disclosure. This does not seem to concern the
  WG.

(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? 

  The WG has discussed this document on a number of occasions
  and supports publication.

(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 one has threatened an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  There are no meaningful nits reported by the checker.

(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 they have.

(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 have been published.

(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.

  There are no downrefs.

(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.

  It will 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).

  The IANA section has been checked and it seems to be correct.

(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.

  New registries:

  PW status refresh reduction Control Messages
  PW status refresh reduction Configuration Message Sub-TLVs
  PW status refresh reduction Notification Codes

  Require the appointmnet of experts.

  Any of the long term PW experts could do this. These will
  be well known to our AD.   

(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.
2017-03-31
04 Dan Romascanu Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list.
2017-03-31
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-03-30
04 Yaron Sheffer Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. Sent review to list.
2017-03-29
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2017-03-29
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2017-03-28
04 Jouni Korhonen Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Jouni Korhonen was rejected
2017-03-28
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2017-03-28
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04.txt. 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-pals-status-reduction-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, a new registry is to be created called the PW Status Refresh Reduction Control Messages registry. The new registry will be a subregistry in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

The registration rules for the new registry are as follows:

Type value 1 through 2 are defined in this document.
Type values 3 through 64, and 128 through 254 are to be assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" policy defined in RFC5226.
Type values 65 through 127, 0 and 255 are to be allocated using the IETF review policy defined in [RFC5226].

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type Message Description. Reference
---- ------------------------- -----------------
0x01 Notification message. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x02 PW Configuration Message. [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the PW Status Refresh Reduction Configuration Message Sub-TLVs registry. The new registry will also be a subregistry in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

The registration rules provided by the current draft for the new registry are as follows:
Type value 1 through 2 are defined in this document.
Type values 3 through 64, and 128 through 254 are to be assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" policy defined in RFC5226.
Type values 65 through 127, 0 and 255 are to be allocated using the IETF review policy defined in [RFC5226].

IANA Question --> We have echoed the IANA action request that appears in section 8.2 of the current document, but it appears to IANA that values 1,2 and 3 are defined in this document - not just 1 and 2. Is this correct? If so, the following initial registrations will be made. Could the authors ensure that the remainder of the registration rules for this new registry are correct as well?

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

sub-TLV type Description. Reference
------------ ------------------------- --------------
0x01 MPLS-TP Tunnel ID. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x02 PW ID configured List. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x03 PW ID unconfigured List. [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the PW Status Refresh Reduction Notification Codes registry. The new registry will also be a subregistry in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

The registration rules for the new registry are as follows:

Type value 0 through 7 are defined in the current draft.
Type values 8 through 65536, and 134,217,729 through 4,294,967,294 are to be assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" policy defined in RFC5226.
Type values 65536 through 134,217,728, 0 and 4,294,967,295 are to be allocated through IETF Review as defined in RFC 5226.

IANA Question --> Section 8.3 of the current draft mentions checking the "Error" status of First Come First Served assignments but the registration rules do not seem to include any FCFS assignments. Are there any FCFS assignments in this new registry?

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Code Error? Description. Reference
---------- ------ ------------------------------ --------------
0x00000000 No Null Notification. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x00000001 No PW configuration mismatch. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x00000002 Yes PW Configuration TLV conflict. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x00000003 No Unknown TLV (U-bit=1). [ RFC-to-be ]
0x00000004 Yes Unknown TLV (U-bit=0). [ RFC-to-be ]
0x00000005 No Unknown Message Type. [ RFC-to-be ]
0x00000006 No PW configuration not supported.[ RFC-to-be ]
0x00000007 Yes Unacknowledged control message.[ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the PW Status Refresh Reduction Message Flags registry. The new registry will also be a subregistry in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

The new registry is to be managed through IETF Review as defined by [ RFC5226 ].

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Bit Position Name Description. Reference
------------ ---- ----------------------- ---------------
0 U Unknown flag bit. [ RFC-to-be ]
1 C Configuration flag bit. [ RFC-to-be ]

Fifth, in the MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types) subregistry of the Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/

A new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: PW Sytatus Refresh Reduction
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> Does the description possibly contain a typographic error?

The IANA Services Operator understands that these five 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-03-28
04 Jürgen Schönwälder Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list.
2017-03-23
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-03-23
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-03-23
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2017-03-23
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2017-03-22
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2017-03-22
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2017-03-21
04 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-04-13
2017-03-17
04 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-03-17
04 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Stewart Bryant , pals@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Stewart Bryant , pals@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (MPLS LSP PW status refresh reduction for Static Pseudowires) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS LSP PW status refresh reduction for Static Pseudowires'
  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 2017-03-31. 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 document describes a method for generating an aggregated
  pseudowire status message transmitted on a Multi-Protocol Label
  Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) to indicate the status of
  one or more pseudowires carried on the LSP.

  The method for transmitting the pseudowire (PW) status information is
  not new, however this protocol extension allows a Service Provider
  (SP) to reliably monitor the individual PW status while not
  overwhelming the network with multiple periodic status messages. This
  is achieved by sending a single cumulative summary status
  verification message for all the PWs grouped in the same LSP.






The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction/ballot/

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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2818/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1604/





2017-03-17
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-03-17
04 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2017-03-17
04 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2017-03-17
04 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2017-03-17
04 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2017-03-17
04 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2017-03-15
04 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Expert Review
2017-03-08
04 Luca Martini New version available: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04.txt
2017-03-08
04 (System) New version approved
2017-03-08
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Martini , Elisa Bellagamba , George Swallow
2017-03-08
04 Luca Martini Uploaded new revision
2017-02-22
03 Luca Martini New version available: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-03.txt
2017-02-22
03 (System) New version approved
2017-02-22
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Martini , Elisa Bellagamba , George Swallow
2017-02-22
03 Luca Martini Uploaded new revision
2017-02-12
02 Luca Martini New version available: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-02.txt
2017-02-12
02 (System) New version approved
2017-02-12
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Elisa Bellagamba" , pals-chairs@ietf.org, "Luca Martini" , "George Swallow"
2017-02-12
02 Luca Martini Uploaded new revision
2017-02-12
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Elisa Bellagamba" , pals-chairs@ietf.org, "Luca Martini" , "George Swallow"
2017-02-12
02 Luca Martini Uploaded new revision
2016-10-12
01 Xian Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Adrian Farrel.
2016-09-27
01 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2016-09-24
01 Xian Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel
2016-09-24
01 Xian Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel
2016-09-24
01 Xian Zhang Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-09-13
01 Xian Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ross Callon
2016-09-13
01 Xian Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ross Callon
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant


(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?  …


(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.

The title page header says Standard 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

  This document describes a method for generating an aggregated
  pseudowire status message on Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
  network Label Switched Path (LSP).

  The method for transmitting the pseudowire (PW) status information is
  not new, however this protocol extension allows a Service Provider
  (SP) to reliably monitor the individual PW status while not
  overwhelming the network with multiple periodic status messages. This
  is achieved by sending a single cumulative summary status
  verification message for all the PWs grouped in the same LSP.

Working Group Summary

  The working groups has been working on this for about five years. It
  has discussed it a number of times and supports publication.

Document Quality

  This is a well written document.

  There has been industry interest but we are not sure how widely
  it has been implimented. It is not uncommon in this area
  for RFC to preceed implementation.

Personnel

  Stewart Bryant 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.

  I have read every word of the text, and gave feedback to the
  authors before issing the WG LC on the updated version.

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

  I am satisfied that this document as been adequately reviewed.

(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.

  There is nothing special about this documnet that needs other
  than the normal directorate reviews as the next stage.

(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.

  I have concerns about publishing this document.

(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 they have.

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

  There is one IPR disclosure. This does not seem to concern the
  WG.

(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? 

  The WG has discussed this document on a number of occasions
  and supports publication.

(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 one has threatened an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  There are no meaningful nits reported by the checker.

(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 they have.

(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 have been published.

(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.

  There are no downrefs.

(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.

  It will 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).

  The IANA section has been checked and it seems to be correct.

(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.

  New registries:

  PW status refresh reduction Control Messages
  PW status refresh reduction Configuration Message Sub-TLVs
  PW status refresh reduction Notification Codes

  Require the appointmnet of experts.

  Any of the long term PW experts could do this. These will
  be well known to our AD.   

(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.
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant Changed document writeup
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-08-25
01 Stewart Bryant Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-07-12
Maddy Conner Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction
2016-06-22
01 Luca Martini New version available: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-01.txt
2016-06-09
00 Stewart Bryant Notification list changed to "Stewart Bryant" <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
2016-06-09
00 Stewart Bryant Document shepherd changed to Stewart Bryant
2016-02-04
00 Andy Malis Updating PWE3 WG draft to become PALS WG draft.
2016-02-04
00 Andy Malis This document now replaces draft-ietf-pwe3-status-reduction instead of None
2016-02-04
00 Luca Martini New version available: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-00.txt