Skip to main content

Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2013-09-13
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2013-09-05
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2013-08-27
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2013-08-19
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2013-08-19
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2013-08-19
09 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2013-08-19
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2013-08-19
09 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2013-08-19
09 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2013-08-19
09 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2013-08-19
09 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-08-18
09 Adrian Farrel State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2013-08-18
09 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2013-08-18
09 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-08-16
09 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
09 addresses my major concerns.

former discuss:

Abstract

  The initial effort of the PCE (Path computation element) WG is
  specifically focused …
[Ballot comment]
09 addresses my major concerns.

former discuss:

Abstract

  The initial effort of the PCE (Path computation element) WG is
  specifically focused on MPLS.  As a next step, this draft describes
  functional requirements for GMPLS application of PCE.

Was specifically focused on mpls

Is replicated in section 1

also I'm not sure it was

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4655/

is the very first document out the door for pce and it already states it's applicability to GMPLS. likewise GMPLS is included in the the charter.


3.3

Mibs are not the sole manageability consideration associated with the application of PCE to GMPLS networks

    reliance on other protocols and functions are considerations (e.g. in or out of band signaling) are a considers

    impact on network operations are a consideration.

4.

imho the security considerations section is inadequate.  at a minimum it should cite supporting PCE security considerations secretion of RFC 4655
former comment:

Some of the items here are nits I don't feel strongly about those but they are inline and I can shift them to a comment.

also in section 1

  This document provides the investigated results of GMPLS applications
  of PCE for the support of GMPLS path computation.  This document also
  provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in GMPLS intra-
  domain and inter-domain environments.

awkward

  This document provides requirements for GMPLS application
  of PCE in support of GMPLS path computation, included are
  requirements for both intra-domain and inter-domain environments.

2.1.  Path computation in GMPLS network

  Figure 1 depicts a typical GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
  link, a transit link as well as an egress link, to investigate a
  consistent guideline for GMPLS path computation.

awkward

  Figure 1 depicts a model GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
  link, a transit link as well as an egress link. We will use this model to investigate
  consistent guidelines for GMPLS path computation.

fig 2.

  The
  client Ethernet service could be provided by a VC4 connection

Virtual Concatenation is not a connection it's a mapping.


3.1.  Requirements on Path Computation Request

  As for path computation in GMPLS-controlled networks as discussed in
  section 2, the PCE should consider the GMPLS TE attributes
  appropriately once a PCC or another PCE requests a path computation.
  Indeed, the path calculation request message from the PCC or the PCE
  must contain the information specifying appropriate attributes.
  According to [RFC5440], [PCE-WSON-REQ] and to RSVP procedures like
  explicit label control(ELC),the additional attributes introduced are
  as follows:


Starting an entirely new section with a subordinating conjunction is super painful it implies this is part of section 2

If this is just a subsection of section 2 then great it should be reorganized.

Otherwise, consider:

The PCE should consider the GMPLS TE attributes appropriately once a PCC or another PCE requests a Path computation in GMPLS-controlled networks as discussed in section 2.

Appropriately really needs to be qualified as the the numbered elements below.

remove Indeed

3.1 (4)  if we are referring to the network  technology in it's entirety is not G.709 OTUk not G.709 ODUk since the later is the wrapper for other client signals?
2013-08-16
09 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] Position for Joel Jaeggli has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2013-07-23
09 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
For the record only. No action on the draft is needed.

There were actually two issues in my initial discussion:
1. this specific …
[Ballot comment]
For the record only. No action on the draft is needed.

There were actually two issues in my initial discussion:
1. this specific draft
2. a generic issue of PCE management

During the IESG telechat, I overreacted on the issue 2. while looking at 1.

1. The draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-09.txt draft addresses my concern with the new "GMPLS PCE Management" section

2. A generic issue of PCE management
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4655#section-9 "manageability considerations" is very good. It covers a lot.
But 7 years after, I would be appropriate to have a PCE manageability draft, covering the different manageability pieces (MIB, OAM, you-name-it) and basically express how to manage a PCE network (with extensions)  today.
Just one example for this RFC: "it must be possible to control the application of policy at the PCE through configuration." How is it done today?

Regards, Benoit
2013-07-23
09 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2013-07-22
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-07-22
09 Cindy Morgan New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-09.txt
2013-07-16
08 Alexey Melnikov Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2013-06-27
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2013-06-27
08 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-06-27
08 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-06-26
08 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-06-26
08 Benoît Claise
[Ballot discuss]
I agree with Joel. Section 3.3 GMPLS PCE Management is really too weak for a requirement document.
It sounds like: "hey, let's put …
[Ballot discuss]
I agree with Joel. Section 3.3 GMPLS PCE Management is really too weak for a requirement document.
It sounds like: "hey, let's put a MIB to satisfy the OPS ADs."
Are you really going to manage GMPLS PCE deployment with a read-only MIB module.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 and RFC 4802 are both read-only.
This section is not about management, it's just monitoring.
The WG should review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706, and tell us how they plan on "managing" GMPLS PCE?
Please review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706#appendix-A, and answer the different questions.
2013-06-26
08 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-06-26
08 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot discuss]

Abstract

  The initial effort of the PCE (Path computation element) WG is
  specifically focused on MPLS.  As a next step, this …
[Ballot discuss]

Abstract

  The initial effort of the PCE (Path computation element) WG is
  specifically focused on MPLS.  As a next step, this draft describes
  functional requirements for GMPLS application of PCE.

Was specifically focused on mpls

Is replicated in section 1

also I'm not sure it was

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4655/

is the very first document out the door for pce and it already states it's applicability to GMPLS. likewise GMPLS is included in the the charter.


3.3

Mibs are not the sole manageability consideration associated with the application of PCE to GMPLS networks

    reliance on other protocols and functions are considerations (e.g. in or out of band signaling) are a considers

    impact on network operations are a consideration.

4.

imho the security considerations section is inadequate.  at a minimum it should cite supporting PCE security considerations secretion of RFC 4655
2013-06-26
08 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
Some of the items here are nits I don't feel strongly about those but they are inline and I can shift them to …
[Ballot comment]
Some of the items here are nits I don't feel strongly about those but they are inline and I can shift them to a comment.

also in section 1

  This document provides the investigated results of GMPLS applications
  of PCE for the support of GMPLS path computation.  This document also
  provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in GMPLS intra-
  domain and inter-domain environments.

awkward

  This document provides requirements for GMPLS application
  of PCE in support of GMPLS path computation, included are
  requirements for both intra-domain and inter-domain environments.

2.1.  Path computation in GMPLS network

  Figure 1 depicts a typical GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
  link, a transit link as well as an egress link, to investigate a
  consistent guideline for GMPLS path computation.

awkward

  Figure 1 depicts a model GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
  link, a transit link as well as an egress link. We will use this model to investigate
  consistent guidelines for GMPLS path computation.

fig 2.

  The
  client Ethernet service could be provided by a VC4 connection

Virtual Concatenation is not a connection it's a mapping.


3.1.  Requirements on Path Computation Request

  As for path computation in GMPLS-controlled networks as discussed in
  section 2, the PCE should consider the GMPLS TE attributes
  appropriately once a PCC or another PCE requests a path computation.
  Indeed, the path calculation request message from the PCC or the PCE
  must contain the information specifying appropriate attributes.
  According to [RFC5440], [PCE-WSON-REQ] and to RSVP procedures like
  explicit label control(ELC),the additional attributes introduced are
  as follows:


Starting an entirely new section with a subordinating conjunction is super painful it implies this is part of section 2

If this is just a subsection of section 2 then great it should be reorganized.

Otherwise, consider:

The PCE should consider the GMPLS TE attributes appropriately once a PCC or another PCE requests a Path computation in GMPLS-controlled networks as discussed in section 2.

Appropriately really needs to be qualified as the the numbered elements below.

remove Indeed

3.1 (4)  if we are referring to the network  technology in it's entirety is not G.709 OTUk not G.709 ODUk since the later is the wrapper for other client signals?
2013-06-26
08 Joel Jaeggli Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Joel Jaeggli
2013-06-25
08 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-06-25
08 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot discuss]
Some of the items here are nits I don't feel strongly about those but they are inline and I can shift them to …
[Ballot discuss]
Some of the items here are nits I don't feel strongly about those but they are inline and I can shift them to a comment.

Abstract

  The initial effort of the PCE (Path computation element) WG is
  specifically focused on MPLS.  As a next step, this draft describes
  functional requirements for GMPLS application of PCE.

Was specifically focused on mpls

Is replicated in section 1

also I'm not sure it was

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4655/

is the very first document out the door for pce and it already states it's applicability to GMPLS. likewise GMPLS is included in the the charter.

also in section 1

  This document provides the investigated results of GMPLS applications
  of PCE for the support of GMPLS path computation.  This document also
  provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in GMPLS intra-
  domain and inter-domain environments.

awkward

  This document provides requirements for GMPLS application
  of PCE in support of GMPLS path computation, included are
  requirements for both intra-domain and inter-domain environments.

2.1.  Path computation in GMPLS network

  Figure 1 depicts a typical GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
  link, a transit link as well as an egress link, to investigate a
  consistent guideline for GMPLS path computation.

awkward

  Figure 1 depicts a model GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
  link, a transit link as well as an egress link. We will use this model to investigate
  consistent guidelines for GMPLS path computation.

fig 2.

  The
  client Ethernet service could be provided by a VC4 connection

Virtual Concatenation is not a connection it's a mapping.


3.1.  Requirements on Path Computation Request

  As for path computation in GMPLS-controlled networks as discussed in
  section 2, the PCE should consider the GMPLS TE attributes
  appropriately once a PCC or another PCE requests a path computation.
  Indeed, the path calculation request message from the PCC or the PCE
  must contain the information specifying appropriate attributes.
  According to [RFC5440], [PCE-WSON-REQ] and to RSVP procedures like
  explicit label control(ELC),the additional attributes introduced are
  as follows:


Starting an entirely new section with a subordinating conjunction is super painful it implies this is part of section 2

If this is just a subsection of section 2 then great it should be reorganized.

Otherwise, consider:

The PCE should consider the GMPLS TE attributes appropriately once a PCC or another PCE requests a Path computation in GMPLS-controlled networks as discussed in section 2.

Appropriately really needs to be qualified as the the numbered elements below.

remove Indeed

3.1 (4)  if we are referring to the network  technology in it's entirety is not G.709 OTUk not G.709 ODUk since the later is the wrapper for other client signals?

3.3

Mibs are not the sole manageability consideration associated with the application of PCE to GMPLS networks

    reliance on other protocols and functions are considerations (e.g. in or out of band signaling) are a considers

    impact on network operations are a consideration.

4.

imho the security considerations section is inadequate.  at a minimum it should cite supporting PCE security considerations secretion of RFC 4655
2013-06-25
08 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-06-25
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

The secdir review [1] ended up with the authors and
AD suggesting this addition to the security
considerations, which I think would be …
[Ballot comment]

The secdir review [1] ended up with the authors and
AD suggesting this addition to the security
considerations, which I think would be good:

PCEP extensions to support GMPLS should be considered
under the same security as current PCE work and this
extension will not change the underlying security issues.
Sec. 10 of [RFC5440] describes the list of security
considerations in PCEP. At the time [RFC5440] was
published, TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) had not
been fully specified for securing the TCP connections
that underlie PCEP sessions. TCP-AO [RFC5925] has now
been published and PCEP implementations should fully
support TCP-AO according to [RFC6952].

  [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04026.html
2013-06-25
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-06-25
08 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-06-25
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-06-24
08 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-06-24
08 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-06-21
08 Cindy Morgan Note field has been cleared
2013-06-21
08 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-06-20
08 Peter Yee Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2013-06-20
08 Peter Yee Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2013-06-20
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer.
2013-06-11
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2013-06-11
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2013-06-11
08 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2013-06-11
08 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2013-06-11
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-06-11
08 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2013-06-11
08 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-06-27
2013-06-11
08 Adrian Farrel Document shepherd changed to Julien Meuric
2013-06-11
08 Adrian Farrel Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2013-06-10
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-06-10
08 Kenichi Ogaki IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2013-06-10
08 Kenichi Ogaki New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08.txt
2013-06-07
07 Adrian Farrel Need a new revision to resolve IETF last call comments
2013-06-07
07 Adrian Farrel State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2013-06-07
07 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2013-06-06
07 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2013-05-30
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2013-05-30
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2013-05-30
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2013-05-30
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2013-05-30
07 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2013-05-30
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-05-30
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-05-24
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-05-24
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for GMPLS applications of …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG
(pce) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE'
  as Informational RFC

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 2013-06-07. 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

  The initial effort of the PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS
  (Multi-protocol label switching).  As a next step, this draft
  describes functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS)
  application of PCE (Path computation element).

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req/ballot/


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

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1869/
2013-05-24
07 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-05-24
07 Amy Vezza Last call was requested
2013-05-24
07 Amy Vezza State changed to Last Call Requested from Last Call Requested
2013-05-24
07 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2013-05-24
07 Adrian Farrel Last call was requested
2013-05-24
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2013-05-24
07 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2013-05-24
07 Adrian Farrel
AD review
===
Hi,

I have conducted my usual AD review intended to catch any issues before
IETF last call and IESG evaluation.

With this …
AD review
===
Hi,

I have conducted my usual AD review intended to catch any issues before
IETF last call and IESG evaluation.

With this document my comments are relatively minor and so I would like
you to consider them as part of the IETF last call which I will start
shortly.

Thanks for the work.

Adrian

---

idnits shows a couple of issues with your references

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 373, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4927' is defined on line 402, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

These both seem like relevant references and I suggest that you find a
place in the text to point to them.

---

Some work on acronyms, please.

PCE needs to be expanded on first use in the Abstract and the main text
(not on the second use :-)

OTOH, MPLS and GMPLS do not need to be expanded.

PCC shows up in section 2.1
PCReq and PCRep are in 2.1 (but expanded a little later)
P2MP is in section 2.2
ERO and XRO show in section 3.1
PCEP shows in section 3.2


---

Section 1 para 4 seems to say that SRLG is covered in RFC 3473. Are you
sure? Or do you need a different reference?

---

In Section 3.1 reqs (1), (2) and (3) you appear to be limiting the
supported values to only those listed or those in the referenced RFCs.

You may do better to say less. Just point at the base definition of the
signaling fields (in RFC 3473?) and then say "all current and future
values".

---

Section 6

Julien Meuric not Meulic
2013-05-23
07 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was changed
2013-05-23
07 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was generated
2013-05-23
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-05-23
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-05-23
07 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was generated
2013-05-23
07 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-05-22
07 Adrian Farrel Document shepherd changed to (None)
2013-05-22
07 Adrian Farrel Note added 'Julien Meuric  is the document shepherd.'
2013-05-22
07 Adrian Farrel Intended Status changed to Informational
2013-05-22
07 Adrian Farrel IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-05-22
07 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req
2013-05-22
07 Julien Meuric IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2013-05-21
07 Julien Meuric Changed document writeup
2013-03-12
07 Kenichi Ogaki draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07.txt
2012-06-27
06 Fatai Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt
2012-01-05
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-05.txt
2011-12-10
05 (System) Document has expired
2011-06-08
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-04.txt
2010-10-20
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-03.txt
2010-07-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-02.txt
2009-07-08
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-01.txt
2008-09-29
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-00.txt