Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Capability Advertisement for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-06

[Ballot discuss]
Updated Discuss after email exchanges

In Section 3.1 I think that the four bits marked "Reserved" should
actually be marked "Unassigned". That is, you are intending that they
can be allocated by a future RFC.

[Ballot comment]
I thought about making this a trivial DISCUSS, but decided that you'll fix it either way, so I'll just leave it as a COMMENT:  In Section 3.1, you say, 'The remaining values (0x10 through 0x80) are to be assigned by IANA using the "IETF Consensus" policy defined in [RFC5226].'  The policy defined in 5226 is called "IETF Review", not "IETF Consensus".  Please fix that here; thanks.

[Ballot discuss]
IANA raised comments on 15th January and there has been no response yet.

The question needing a response was...

> a new registry is to be created called the VCCV Extended CV Types.
>
> IANA Question -> Is this new registry inteded to be a subregistry
> of the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/ ?

---

In Section 3.1 I think that the four bits marked "Reserved" should
actually be marked "Unallocated". That is, you are intending that they
can be allocated by a future RFC.

[Ballot comment]
The abbreviation "VCCV CC" is only used once. I suggest doing away with
it in a document where "VCCV" and "CC" both exist independently yet
"VCCV CC" is not the combination of "VCCV" and "CC".

---

Section 1

s/manage PW s then/manage PWs then/

---

Table 2 says that the new sub-TLV has length 4.
Section 2.1 implies that the length is variable (i.e. the sub-TLV can be
extended).
Please make these two statements consistent.

---

Section 2.1

  The Reserved field must be set to zeroes on transmit and ignored on
  receive.

I think that is "MUST".

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA has a comment and questions about the Actions requested in
the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Pseudowire Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type Registry of the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

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

Parameter: [TBD-at-registration ]
ID Length: 4
Description: VCCV Extended CV Parameter
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have requested that 0x19 be used as the value for Parameter ID.

This part of the Pseudowire Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type Registry is managed via Expert Review.

IANA Note/Question -> We will initiate a request and send this to the designated experts (DE) for review.  This request will be clear after
the DE approve the request.

Second, a new registry is to be created called the VCCV Extended CV Types.

IANA Question -> Is this new registry inteded to be a subregistry of the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/ ?

This new registry will be maintained via IETF Consensus as defined in RFC 5226.  There are initial registrations in this new registry, all with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ].

+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|  Bit(Value)  | Description                                        |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Bit 0 (0x01) | Independent mode for PW Fault Detection only      |
| Bit 1 (0x02) | Independent mode for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW  |
|              | Fault Status Signaling                            |
| Bit 2 (0x04) | Coordinated mode for PW Fault Detection only      |
| Bit 3 (0x08) | Coordinated mode for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW  |
|              | Fault Status Signaling                            |
| Bit 4 (0x10) | Reserved                                          |
| Bit 5 (0x20) | Reserved                                          |
| Bit 6 (0x40) | Reserved                                          |
| Bit 7 (0x80) | Reserved                                          |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+

IANA understands that these are the only actions 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capability Advertisement) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capability Advertisement'
  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 2014-01-16. 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 specifies how use of proactive Connectivity
  Verification (CV), Continuity Check (CC), and Remote Defect
  Indication (RDI) for the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) affects
  operation and management function election for Pseudowire (PW)
  Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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 draft defines four new VCCV CV types and a new IANA registry. Yes.

(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 specifies how use of proactive Connectivity
    Verification (CV), Continuity Check (CC), and Remote Defect
    Indication (RDI) for the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) affects
    operation and management function election for Pseudowire (PW)
    Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV).

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No, it was pretty straightforward. The majority of discussion of the draft occurred while it was an individual draft, when it went though several round of comments and revisions before being adopted as a WG draft.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are no known implementations of the draft at this time. At least one vendor has it under consideration for implementation.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Andy Malis. Stewart Bryant.

(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.

The shepherd did a review during WG last call, and had comments that resulted in a new revision to make it ready for publication. There was one last revision to allow it to pass nits cleanly.

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

No, the changes have been minor since it became a WG draft, the majority of the work was done when it was an individual draft.

(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.

(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.

None.

(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.

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

No.

(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 been largely silent since it became a WG draft, but that's largely because issues were discussed early in the process, and it's a very short, straightforward draft.

(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.

No nits. There is a typo that can be fixed by the RFC Editor: In Section 2.1, the text "It it isrecommended" should be replaced by "It is recommended".

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(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?

No.

(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).

All of these have been reviewed.

(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.

N/A.