GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-05

[Ballot comment]

Why do people so like saying there are no new security
considerations? Anyway, LI would seem to be a fine way
to DoS a thing so surely that is new here?

[Ballot comment]

Why do people so link saying there are no new security
considerations? Anyway, LI would seem to be a fine way
to DoS a thing so surely that is new here?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-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:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are two actions which must be completed.

First, in the Attribute Flags subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/

a new attribute flag is to registered as follows:

Bit No: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: Loopback
Attribute Flags Path: Yes
Attribute Flags Resv: No
RRO: Yes
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at:

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

four new Error Value sub-codes for the "OAM Problem" [40] Error Code are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Lock Failure
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Unlock Failure
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Loopback Failure
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Exit Loopback Failure
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands these two actions are the only ones 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. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture
and Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document:
- 'GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback'
  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 2015-02-18. 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 extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol-
  Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and
  Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  These
  mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized
  Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb/ballot/


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

According to the discussion of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro this document needs to specify where in the ERO the sub-object is allowed. The following text has been suggested:

The Attribute Flags TLV with Loopback Attribute Flag set MUST be present
after an explicit Hop addressing an TE Router ID identifying a specific
node or a Link ID identifying an incoming TE link.  it MUST NOT be present
after a loose,  abstract node, Link ID identifying an outgoing TE link,
Component Interface ID or Label.

Thank you for recognising the use of the Administratively Down bit for
LI. It's good to see existing mechanisms being adapted to new uses.

I've done my usual AD review to try to catch any issues before IETF
last call. I've found a few issues, the first two of which will need
discussion in the working group, I think. The remaining issues are
relatively minor.

While we wait for you to discuss these issues and possibly issue a new
revision, I will put the document into "Revised I-D Needed" state.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

---

You want to use a bit in the Attribute Flags TLV to indicate Loopback
and propose including that TLV in the HOP Attributes ERO subobject as
defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro.

Please note that that draft is now draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro.

However, draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro defines that the Attributes
Flags TLV is not allowed in the HOP Attributes ERO subobject. I think
this is for a good reason that many (all?) of bits defined so far have
no meaning if targeted at a specific transit LSR.

---

I think you need to describe what happens if a LB instruction is
received when the LSP is not admin down. Similarly, what happens when
an LSP is moved from admin down to admin up when a LB instruction is in
force. Is there an implication that transit nodes need to inspect the
Admin Status flags?

======

idnits shows

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4783' is defined on line 312, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4872' is defined on line 315, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4974' is defined on line 320, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5852' is defined on line 324, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

---

In 3.2 you talk about reporting the LB in the RRO on the corresponding
Resv. What about the RRO on the Path that is forwarded downstream?

---

I think that Section 5 should refer to the security considerations
section of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro to pick up any concerns with
the use of that mechanism.

> 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)?

Standards Track

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

The document defines RSVP related formats and behaviors.

> 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 specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol-
  Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and
  Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  These
  mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized
  Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane.

> 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 to TEAS WGs 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 protocol has been implemented.  The extensions defined in
this document are compatible with earlier implementations.  While there
have been no public statements on implementation, the authors are from
multiple vendors and an operator, and implementation is expected.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel

>
> (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 CCAMP WG, including as part of an extended WG last calls.
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 at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16749.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 IPR disclosed.

> (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 http://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?

One draft, ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro, has passed last call but its
publication has not yet been requested.  A publication request is
expected soon.  (Waiting for an update.)

> (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 IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd.  Two new
allocations are requested in this document.

> (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