Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-05-07
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-04-29
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-04-18
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-03-07
|
16 | Adrian Farrel | Shepherding AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2014-02-11
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-02-11
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-02-11
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-02-10
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-02-10
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-02-10
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-02-10
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-02-10
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-10
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-10
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-02-06
|
16 | Curtis Villamizar | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-02-06
|
16 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-16.txt |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] As I mentioned to Stewart privately, I clicked too fast on "no objection" 2 days ago. I found this draft not easy to … [Ballot comment] As I mentioned to Stewart privately, I clicked too fast on "no objection" 2 days ago. I found this draft not easy to read. I had to re-read a few paragraphs/sentences multiple times - Other services will continue to require only that reordering not occur within a microflow as is current practice. The definition speaks of flow, not microflow - OLD: The intent is to first provide a set of functional requirements that are as independent as possible of protocol specifications in Section 3. NEW: The intent is to first provide a set of functional requirements, in Section 3, that are as independent as possible of protocol specifications - Section 1.1 The implementation SHOULD in most or all cases allow any new functionality to be individually enabled or disabled through configuration. Isn't a requirement? Shouldn't it have his own REQ number? - A service provider or other deployment MAY enable or disable any feature in their network, subject to implementation limitations on sets of features which can be disabled. Not sure what this sentence means. What is the requirement, if any? - What is the meaning of MAY in requirements, like in FR 22 - Composite Link The term Composite Link had been a registered trademark of Avici Systems, but was abandoned in 2007. The term composite link is now defined by the ITU-T in [ITU-T.G.800]. The ITU-T definition includes multipath as defined here, plus inverse multiplexing which is explicitly excluded from the definition of multipath. What don't you define what it is (I can only guess), then add a note about the ITU-T relationship - Client Layer A client layer is the one immediately above a server layer. Server Layer A server layer is the latey immediately below a client layer. A is left to B, and B is right to A ... still doesn't tell me what A and B are. - Inverse Multiplexing Inverse multiplexing either transmits whole packets and resequences the packets at the receiving end or subdivides packets and reassembles the packets at the receiving end. Inverse multiplexing requires that all packets be handled by a common egress packet processing element and is therefore not useful for very high bandwidth applications. I still don't know what Inverse Multiplexing is - Flow identification. How does it relate to the flow definition in RFC 7011? - A Component Link may be a point-to-point physical link (where a "physical link" includes one or more link layer plus a physical layer) or a logical link that preserves ordering in the steady state. A component link may have transient out of order events, but such You should really be consistent regarding capitalized terms from the terminology section, throughout the document. Here, Component Link versus component link - Use of the term "advanced multipath" outside this document, if referring to the term as defined here, should indicate Advanced Multipath as defined by this document, citing the current document name. If using another definition of "advanced multipath", documents may optionally clarify that they are not using the term "advanced multipath" as defined by this document if clarification is deemed helpful. Isn't it obvious? - FR#26 If the total demand offered by traffic flows exceeds the capacity of the AMG, offered or required? - A delay discontinuity is an isolated event which may greatly exceed the normal delay variation (jitter). A delay discontinuity has the following effect. When a flow is moved from a current link to a target link with lower latency, reordering can occur. When a flow is moved from a current link to a target link with a higher latency, a time gap can occur. Some flows (e.g., timing distribution, PW circuit emulation) are quite sensitive to these effects. A delay discontinuity can also cause a jitter buffer underrun or overrun affecting user experience in real time voice services (causing an audible click). These sensitivities may be specified in a Performance Objective. There is some information on this one in RFC 5481 |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Updated after discussion with the Editor. --- I am not going to insist that section 3.2 is removed, but this section seems to … [Ballot comment] Updated after discussion with the Editor. --- I am not going to insist that section 3.2 is removed, but this section seems to me to be out of place in this document. I would be pleased to see it go, but am not exercised by its presence. The reasoning for removing it is that there is nothing here that describes the behaviour of AMGs per se. Instead the text is about how information about links is reported from one layer to another. --- It would be nice if the concise "Abstract Multipath" definition in the Abstract were copied to the Intro. --- Andy Malis may want to change his coordinates. |
2014-02-06
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] I wanted to ballot Yes on this document, and may be able to move there are we have Disucssed these points: --- Why … [Ballot discuss] I wanted to ballot Yes on this document, and may be able to move there are we have Disucssed these points: --- Why is Seciton 3.2 particular to this document? Any link may be provided by a lower layer network. And in that case the latency of the client link is a function of the latency of the server trail. I can understand that this is important to ensure that the component links in the AMG have sufficiently similar latency, but I don't see that the requirements here are specifically stated in a way that is relevant to AMGs. That needs to be clarified or the section removed from this document. In fact, I think that the requirements in Section 3.3 (for example, FR#12) cover this issue. --- GMPLS includes the concept of the protection level offered by a link. This is easy to set up when the component link is built from a trail (or a set of trails in a protection arrangement) in a server layer. How does protection work within an AMG? Is this something to add to section 3.3 or does it warrant more discussion? |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Andy Malis may want to change his coordinates. --- The Abstract … [Ballot comment] Andy Malis may want to change his coordinates. --- The Abstract contains a 3 line description of "Advanced multipath". Something similar (although maybe longer) could usefully be added to the Introduction since the reader may need this background. (This, notwithstanding the helpful and more lengthy discussion in Seciton 2.) --- I'm a little surprised that there are no security requirements. For example, is there not a case for link-level security on the component links (equivalent to L2 security) that implies a desire for security on the server trails? |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Non-blocking comments: please consider them, and chat with me if you like... but no response is required. -- Section 3.5 -- FR#22 … [Ballot comment] Non-blocking comments: please consider them, and chat with me if you like... but no response is required. -- Section 3.5 -- FR#22 Load balancing MAY be used during sustained low traffic periods to reduce the number of active component links for the purpose of power reduction. I'm very suspicious of "MAY" in requirements -- what does it mean here? The fact that load balancing is entirely optional doesn't seem like a "requirement". The same is true of GR#4 in Section 4. |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-02-05
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-02-04
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-02-04
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-02-03
|
15 | Francis Dupont | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2014-01-31
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2014-01-31
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2014-01-28
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-01-28
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Note field has been cleared |
2014-01-28
|
15 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-06 |
2014-01-28
|
15 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
2014-01-28
|
15 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-01-28
|
15 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-28
|
15 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-25
|
15 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-15.txt |
2014-01-25
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-01-25
|
14 | Curtis Villamizar | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-01-25
|
14 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-14.txt |
2014-01-13
|
13 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2013-12-24
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-12-19
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2013-12-10
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-12-10
|
13 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-12-10
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tina Tsou. |
2013-12-09
|
13 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-12-09) |
2013-11-28
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2013-11-28
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2013-11-28
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2013-11-28
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | 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 Advanced Multipath in … 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 Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks' 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 2013-12-09. 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 This document provides a set of requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks. Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to existing multipath techniques. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. I draw readers attention to the following note in the Shepherds report: "After the last WGLC completed, there was concern about the terminology of composite link not quite matching that used in the ITU. The draft has been updated to use the term "Advanced Multipath" instead. Some additional simplifications were also made by the authors' agreement." In view of the changes to the text starting a second IETF Last Call. |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call (ends 2013-06-19) from Last Call Requested |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Last call was requested |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Alia Atlas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Alia Atlas | (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? Informational. Draft discusses requirements and no implementable aspects. Yes, RFC type is indicated in the title page header. (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 There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSP. In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single physical link or single packet processing element. The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised of multiple layers has resulted in additional requirements. Certain services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the component links or a specific component link, where component link characteristics, such as latency, differ. Certain services require that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering. Other services will continue to require only that reordering not occur within a microflow as is current practice. Working Group Summary Interest in the draft was mild - focus mostly from a small set of participants and the co-authors. There were no contentious points. There was discussion about the value of DR#6 where the overhead of just signaling the composite link members may be better than dealing with crankback or poor summarization. The work can support both approaches. After the last WGLC completed, there was concern about the terminology of composite link not quite matching that used in the ITU. The draft has been updated to use the term "Advanced Multipath" instead. Some additional simplifications were also made by the authors' agreement. Document Quality The document is well written and has been updated with focus several times. It has benefited from having Curtis Villamizar being a focused and motivated editor for this and the related drafts. There are no existing implementations, as makes sense for a requirements draft. Personnel Document Shepherd: Alia Atlas Responsible AD: 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. I reviewed this draft at WGLC as well as several times previously. I also reviewed it in the context of the associated drafts. I've reviewed the differences between the -11 and -13 versions. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? While I would have liked to have seen more interest from a larger portion of the WG, the Composite Link work has gotten good review over the past several years. It is clearly a more niche topic. (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 particular review is specifically needed. (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. My only concern is that Composite-Links are a bit of a niche area. Nonetheless, the WG has not had any concerns about the work moving forward. (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, each author has confirmed the lack of any associated IPR; thus all appropriate IPR disclosures (none) have been filed. (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? It represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals with others occasionally chiming in and no disagreement. (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. None found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None needed (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. None (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. Will not affect other existing RFCs (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 IANA work needed. (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. None |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Alia Atlas | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Alia Atlas | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Alia Atlas | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Alia Atlas | (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? Informational. Draft discusses requirements and no implementable aspects. Yes, RFC type is indicated in the title page header. (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 There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSP. In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single physical link or single packet processing element. The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised of multiple layers has resulted in additional requirements. Certain services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the component links or a specific component link, where component link characteristics, such as latency, differ. Certain services require that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering. Other services will continue to require only that reordering not occur within a microflow as is current practice. Working Group Summary Interest in the draft was mild - focus mostly from a small set of participants and the co-authors. There were no contentious points. There was discussion about the value of DR#6 where the overhead of just signaling the composite link members may be better than dealing with crankback or poor summarization. The work can support both approaches. After the last WGLC completed, there was concern about the terminology of composite link not quite matching that used in the ITU. The draft has been updated to use the term "Advanced Multipath" instead. Some additional simplifications were also made by the authors' agreement. Document Quality The document is well written and has been updated with focus several times. It has benefited from having Curtis Villamizar being a focused and motivated editor for this and the related drafts. There are no existing implementations, as makes sense for a requirements draft. Personnel Document Shepherd: Alia Atlas Responsible AD: 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. I reviewed this draft at WGLC as well as several times previously. I also reviewed it in the context of the associated drafts. I've reviewed the differences between the -11 and -13 versions. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? While I would have liked to have seen more interest from a larger portion of the WG, the Composite Link work has gotten good review over the past several years. It is clearly a more niche topic. (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 particular review is specifically needed. (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. My only concern is that Composite-Links are a bit of a niche area. Nonetheless, the WG has not had any concerns about the work moving forward. (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, each author has confirmed the lack of any associated IPR; thus all appropriate IPR disclosures (none) have been filed. (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? It represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals with others occasionally chiming in and no disagreement. (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. None found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None needed (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. None (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. Will not affect other existing RFCs (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 IANA work needed. (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. None |
2013-11-13
|
13 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-13.txt |
2013-10-09
|
12 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-12.txt |
2013-09-13
|
11 | Alia Atlas | Revised based on previous comments and sent back to WG for another Last Call |
2013-09-13
|
11 | Alia Atlas | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-09-13
|
11 | Alia Atlas | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2013-07-19
|
11 | Stewart Bryant | This is now back with the WG for a new WG LC on the changes |
2013-07-19
|
11 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD is watching from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party |
2013-07-11
|
11 | Curtis Villamizar | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-07-11
|
11 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11.txt |
2013-07-02
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-06-27
|
10 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2013-06-20
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2013-06-19
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | Waiting for RTG Directorate Review |
2013-06-19
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-06-19
|
10 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2013-06-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-06-11
|
10 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10, 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-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10, 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. |
2013-06-07
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2013-06-07
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2013-06-06
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-06-06
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-06-05
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-06-05
|
10 | 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 Composite Links in … 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 Composite Links in MPLS Networks) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for Composite Links in MPLS Networks' 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 2013-06-19. 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 There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSR. In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single physical link or single packet processing element. The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised of multiple layers has resulted in additional requirements. Certain services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the component links or a specific component link, where component link characteristics, such as latency, differ. Certain services require that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering. Other services will continue to require only that reordering not occur within a microflow as is current practice. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-06-05
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-06-05
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | Last call was requested |
2013-06-05
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-06-05
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-06-05
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-06-05
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-05-15
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement/shepherdwriteup/ for writeup. |
2013-05-15
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Document shepherd changed to Alia Atlas |
2013-05-15
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2013-05-15
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2013-05-15
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-05-15
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-05-15
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Changed document writeup |
2013-05-14
|
10 | Alia Atlas | Changed document writeup |
2013-04-11
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2013-03-22
|
10 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10.txt |
2013-02-21
|
09 | Alia Atlas | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-02-06
|
09 | Alia Atlas | WGLC started Feb 21 & ending March 15 |
2013-02-06
|
09 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-09.txt |
2012-08-12
|
08 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08.txt |
2012-06-20
|
07 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-07.txt |
2012-06-07
|
06 | Curtis Villamizar | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-06.txt |
2012-01-30
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-05.txt |
2011-09-15
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-03-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-04.txt |
2011-01-10
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-03.txt |
2010-10-11
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-02.txt |
2010-07-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-01.txt |
2010-02-18
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-00.txt |