RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure for End-to-End GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-08

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for a well-written and clear document.  I have one concern around the assumptions in Sec 4.3.2.
If I have understood correctly,  the need to do Rollback will cause traffic loss if resources were shared between
the restoration LSP and the reversion LSP.    Also, during make-before-break, if there are shared resources, then
starting to set up the reversion LSP can cause the restoration LSP to stop working.  It's possible that these traffic-impacting
aspects are well understood in the GMPLS world - but in the MPLS world, they would be surprising side-effects.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: vbeeram@juniper.net, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure for End-to-End GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture
and Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document:
- 'RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure for End-to-End GMPLS Restoration and
  Resource Sharing'
  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 2017-01-17. 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


  In non-packet transport networks, there are requirements where
  Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) end-to-end
  recovery scheme needs to employ restoration Label Switched Path (LSP)
  while keeping resources for the working and/or protecting LSPs
  reserved in the network after the failure occurs.

  This document reviews how the LSP association is to be provided using
  Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
  signaling in the context of GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme when
  using restoration LSP where failed LSP is not torn down.  In
  addition, this document discusses resource sharing-based setup and
  teardown of LSPs as well as LSP reversion procedures.  No new
  signaling extensions are defined by this document, and it is strictly
  informative in nature.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc/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)? 

Informational.

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

Document reviews and discusses signaling procedures for End-to-End GMPLS
Restoration and Resource Sharing. It does not define any protocol related
formats.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

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

>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

This document reviews how the LSP association is to be provided using
Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
signaling in the context of GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme when
using restoration LSP where failed LSP is not torn down.  In
addition, this document discusses resource sharing-based setup and
teardown of LSPs as well as LSP reversion procedures.

> 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?

This document moved from the CCAMP WG to TEAS WG as part of the
routing WG changes. This document has been fairly noncontroversial.

> 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?

The base GMPLS signaling protocol has been implemented. The procedures
discussed in this document are compatible with earlier implementations.
While there have been no public statements on implementation of these
procedures, the authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation
is expected - or may even already exist.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Vishnu Pavan Beeram

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

> (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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as it has progressed
through the WG (first CCAMP, then TEAS). The Shepherd believes this
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?

No.

> If so, describe the review that took place.

N/A.


> (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 specific concerns.

> (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, see thread -
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01569.html


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

No disclosures have been made.

> (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? 

Solid among those who are interested. "strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

> (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 discontent seen.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

The document passes ID nits.

> (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).

The document makes no requests to IANA.

> (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.

IPR response 1 of 6: Rakesh Gandhi: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/_bqJS02AvuTuIoXfYiUw__juEnk
IPR response 2 of 6: Xian Zhang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jv040Ao_LrDtq9TcyVUUdGv91zM
IPR response 3 of 6: Haomian Zheng: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/h1vCy8BVb-ogj_Q9ZEfMhT3S9_4
IPR response 4 of 6: Zafar Ali: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ZBO1qKMWoTW9qOMQjVbiZsezIGM

Still waiting on:
Pawel Brzozowski
Gabriele Maria Galimberti