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 |