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 |