Domain Subobjects for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-06-08
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-06-03
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-31
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-04-27
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-02-22
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-01-06
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-01-05
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from On Hold |
2015-12-23
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from Waiting on Authors |
2015-12-23
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-12-15
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2015-12-15
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-12-15
|
12 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-12-15
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-12-15
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2015-12-15
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-12-15
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-15
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-15
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-12-07
|
12 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-12.txt |
2015-11-19
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-11-19
|
11 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-11.txt |
2015-11-19
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed. Reviewer: Nevil Brownlee. |
2015-11-19
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-11-19
|
10 | Dhruv Dhody | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-11-19
|
10 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-10.txt |
2015-11-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-11-19
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] In Section 5.1, to be consistent with how IANA prefers registry URLs to be specified, please remove the string "/pcep.xhtml" from the three … [Ballot comment] In Section 5.1, to be consistent with how IANA prefers registry URLs to be specified, please remove the string "/pcep.xhtml" from the three IANA URLs. |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for working out new text for the security considerations section from the SecDir review. The new text is significantly better. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06179.html |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-11-18
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-11-17
|
09 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-11-17
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-11-16
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In this text: The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by a legacy implementation. If one of … [Ballot comment] In this text: The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by a legacy implementation. If one of the subobjects is received in a PCEP object that does not understand it, it will behave as described in Section 3.4.3. I think something is confused. Do PCEP objects understand subobjects? Or is this The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by legacy implementations. If a legacy implementation receives one of the subobjects that it does not understand in a PCEP object, the legacy implementation will behave as described in Section 3.4.3. correct? |
2015-11-16
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-11-12
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Klaas Wierenga. |
2015-11-10
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nevil Brownlee |
2015-11-10
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nevil Brownlee |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to none from draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence.all@ietf.org |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-11-19 |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-11-09
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-11-09
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-10-29
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-29
|
09 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent on the approval of another Internet Draft. Specifically, we've been asked to assign the same values that draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects is asking us to assign in other registries. Because we cannot reserve values, if both documents are not approved at the same time, the actions for one document will be placed on hold until both documents' actions are approved. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions that IANA must complete. First, in the IRO Subobjects subregistry of the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ Three new subobjects are to be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: 4 byte AS number Reference: [ RFC-to-be ][draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: OSPF Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ][draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: IS-IS Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ][draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects] Second, in the XRO Subobjects subregistry also in the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ Three new subobjects are to be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: 4 byte AS number Reference: [ RFC-to-be ][draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: OSPF Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ][draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: IS-IS Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ][draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects] NOTE: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects does not instruct us to list it as a reference for the registrations above. To ensure that we're prompted to update those references when the document receives an RFC number, we'll ask the authors of that document to add a mention of this action to their IANA Considerations section. 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. Please note that while IANA cannot reserve specific values, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120. |
2015-10-29
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-10-29
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-10-29
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2015-10-29
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga |
2015-10-29
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga |
2015-10-28
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2015-10-28
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence@ietf.org, db3546@att.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence@ietf.org, db3546@att.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence' as Experimental 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 2015-11-09. 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 ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). This document specifies a standard representation and encoding of a Domain-Sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains traversed to reach the destination domain to be used by Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute inter-domain constrained shortest paths across a predetermined sequence of domains . This document also defines new subobjects to be used to encode domain identifiers. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1690/ |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence.all@ietf.org |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2015-10-26
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-10-19
|
09 | Jonathan Hardwick | (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? Experimental - indicated in the title page. This is appropriate as the document is intended to enable research into using PCEP in inter-domain scenarios in controlled networks where all parties understand the extensions of the draft. This experiment is discussed in section 1.1 of the document. (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. Technical Summary: This document specifies a standard representation and encoding of an ordered sequence of domains in Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP). In this context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). The domain sequence is used by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to stipulate a pre-determined sequence of domains that a path must traverse. It is also used by a Path Computation Element (PCE) to inform a PCC of a sequence of domains that a path must traverse, without giving full details of the sub-paths within those domains. Working Group Summary: There were no particular points of contention in the WG process. The consensus behind publication of this document as an Experimental RFC appears solid. Document Quality: There are two existing implementations of this draft. The document has been well reviewed by the PCEP working group, as reflected in the Acknowledgements section. In particular, Adrian Farrel did a thorough review and provided substantial comments, which were all addressed. There have been no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done. Personnel: Jonathan Hardwick 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 reviewed the document and submitted several comments to the authors. These have been addressed to my satisfaction and I believe that the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No broader review is required. (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. No concerns. The document addresses an identified need and has been adequately vetted. (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, all authors have confirmed that all relevant IPR has been disclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes, see http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1690/. There was not much discussion. One of the draft's co-authors expressed surprise at the disclosure and indicated that he may not have contributed to the document had he known about the IPR. However, he remains listed as a co-author of the document, so I assume that the difficulty was resolved privately. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is a good consensus behind this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits finds no issues and one comment: == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02 (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are normative references to the following Internet drafts. All three should progress to publication as one unit. - draft-ietf-pce-iro-update (which is in my shepherding queue and will be looked at in the next few weeks) - draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No issues. (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. None. (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. |
2015-10-19
|
09 | Jonathan Hardwick | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2015-10-19
|
09 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-10-19
|
09 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-10-19
|
09 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-10-16
|
09 | Jonathan Hardwick | Changed document writeup |
2015-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Jonathan Hardwick" to (None) |
2015-10-13
|
09 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2015-09-21
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09.txt |
2015-08-12
|
08 | Julien Meuric | Notification list changed to "Jonathan Hardwick" <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> |
2015-08-12
|
08 | Julien Meuric | Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hardwick |
2015-08-12
|
08 | Julien Meuric | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2015-04-30
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-08.txt |
2014-12-30
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-07.txt |
2014-10-23
|
06 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-06.txt |
2014-07-01
|
05 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-05.txt |
2014-01-07
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04.txt |
2013-07-09
|
03 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-03.txt |
2013-02-18
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02.txt |
2012-07-05
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01.txt |
2012-05-22
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-00.txt |