IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
RFC 5089
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-05-16 |
08 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Raymond Zhang, Yuichi Ikejiri" to "Raymond Zhang, Yuichi Ikejiri, Jean-Louis Le Roux, JP Vasseur" |
2015-10-14 |
08 | (System) | Notify list changed from pce-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
08 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Ward |
2012-08-22 |
08 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2008-01-08 |
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2008-01-08 |
08 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5089' added by Amy Vezza |
2008-01-07 |
08 | (System) | RFC published |
2007-10-17 |
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2007-10-17 |
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2007-10-17 |
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2007-10-17 |
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2007-10-16 |
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2007-10-16 |
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2007-10-16 |
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2007-10-16 |
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2007-10-16 |
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2007-10-15 |
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2007-10-15 |
08 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Ward has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Ward |
2007-10-05 |
08 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-10-04 |
2007-10-04 |
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2007-10-04 |
08 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2007-10-04 |
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot comment] I still haven't memorized routing terminology so I exercised the terminology section. FYI: - The terminology expansion of IS-IS LSP confused me. Why … [Ballot comment] I still haven't memorized routing terminology so I exercised the terminology section. FYI: - The terminology expansion of IS-IS LSP confused me. Why is LSP "Link State PDU" here and "Label Stitched Path" everywhere else?. - I assume PCED is PCE-Domain -- only the latter is expanded in terminology - TLV not defined or referenced (though I realize it's a very well-known TLA in the field) Section 3.2 - flooding scope through "L1 area" and "L2 sub-domain" -- should this be part of terminology or an explanation referenced? Section 4.1 - If two PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLVs appear, " only the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored". With this requirement, what use is it to allow two of PCE-ADDRESS? If one can be IPv6 and one IPv4 but only the first one MUST be processed, then the other one is useless. thx -- Lisa |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] In section 4.2: Is consistent computation of the PrefL, PrefR, PrefS and PrefY field values important? If so, are we depending upon common … [Ballot comment] In section 4.2: Is consistent computation of the PrefL, PrefR, PrefS and PrefY field values important? If so, are we depending upon common administration of all PCEs? Without a more detailed algorithm, it seems likely a PCC could discover a set of PCEs that used very different algorithms for setting the preference values. |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] In section 4, The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV, there are some statements about future migration that would seem to burn our bridges unnecessarily. … [Ballot discuss] In section 4, The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV, there are some statements about future migration that would seem to burn our bridges unnecessarily. No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. I was fine with the first sentence - if PCED is deemed insufficient, we should define a new sub-TLV that contains all the necessary information. However, the next sentence rules out defining a new sub-TLV for the CAPABILITY TLV! This doesn't make sense to me, and it seems modify RFC 4971, which I did not expect. Shouldn't the last sentence say "will not be carried in the PCED TLV"? |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] In section 4, The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV, there are some curious statements about future migration that would seem to burn our bridges unnecessarily. … [Ballot comment] In section 4, The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV, there are some curious statements about future migration that would seem to burn our bridges unnecessarily. No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. I was fine with the first sentence - if PCED is deemed insufficient, we should define a new sub-TLV that contains all the necessary information. However, the next sentence rules out defining a new sub-TLV for the CAPABILITY TLV! This doesn't make sense to me, and it seems modify RFC 4971, which I did not expect. |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2007-10-03 |
08 | David Ward | [Ballot discuss] 0) The big issue is the claim that IS-IS can be used as failure detection of the PCE. This isn't possible in the … [Ballot discuss] 0) The big issue is the claim that IS-IS can be used as failure detection of the PCE. This isn't possible in the current protocol architecture. This could be possible in IS-IS: " The functionality required to monitor PCE application liveness and withdraw the advertised information from the relevant IS-IS LSP is outside the scope of IS-IS. When a failure event for the PCE has been communicated to IS-IS, it will withdraw advertised information about the PCE. It will only announce lack of reachability to the PCE if the PCE is in fact unreachable." It begs the question of what is used to detect the failure but, that goes into some other spec. 1) This sentence is incomplete: "When the PCE address is no longer reachable, the PCE node has failed, has been torn down, or there is no longer IP connectivity to the PCE node." |
2007-10-03 |
08 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by David Ward |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-10-03 |
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] |
2007-10-02 |
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2007-10-02 |
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] One error caught by Vijay Gurbani during Gen-ART Review: Section 4.1.5: s/Suggested value =4/Suggested value =5/ |
2007-10-02 |
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2007-09-25 |
08 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-10-04 by Ross Callon |
2007-09-25 |
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2007-09-25 |
08 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
2007-09-25 |
08 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
2007-09-25 |
08 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2007-09-24 |
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-09-24 |
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-08.txt |
2007-09-18 |
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup by Ross Callon |
2007-09-11 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt |
2007-06-29 |
08 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Last Call Comments: [ no change from the response of the 1st Last Call ] Upon approval of this document, the IANA will take … IANA Last Call Comments: [ no change from the response of the 1st Last Call ] Upon approval of this document, the IANA will take the following Actions: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV 242" Value Description References ----- ------------------------------ ---------- [tbd (5)] PCE Discovery sub-TLV [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following registry "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints create a new sub-registry "PCED sub-TLVs" Allocation policy: IETF Consensus Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: Sub-TLV Sub-TLV Type Name References ----- -------- ---------- 1 PCE-ADDRESS [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 2 PATH-SCOPE [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 3 PCE-DOMAIN [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 4 NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 5 PCE-CAP-FLAGS [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 6 CONGESTION [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 7-255 Reserved to IANA [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2007-06-28 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-06.txt |
2007-06-27 |
08 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2007-06-13 |
08 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2007-06-13 |
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2007-06-13 |
08 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
2007-06-13 |
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Waiting for Writeup by Ross Callon |
2007-06-06 |
08 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2007-05-30 |
08 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will take the following Actions: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA … IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will take the following Actions: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV 242" Value Description References ----- ------------------------------ ---------- [tbd (5)] PCE Discovery sub-TLV [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following registry "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints create a new sub-registry "PCED sub-TLVs" Allocation policy: IETF Consensus Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: Sub-TLV Sub-TLV Type Name References ----- -------- ---------- 1 PCE-ADDRESS [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 2 PATH-SCOPE [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 3 PCE-DOMAIN [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 4 NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 5 PCE-CAP-FLAGS [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 6 CONGESTION [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] 7-255 Reserved to IANA [RFC-pce-disco-proto-isis-05] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2007-05-25 |
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Bernard Aboba |
2007-05-25 |
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Bernard Aboba |
2007-05-23 |
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2007-05-22 |
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon |
2007-05-22 |
08 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
2007-05-22 |
08 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-05-22 |
08 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-05-22 |
08 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-05-17 |
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
2007-05-09 |
08 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up >(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version > of … PROTO Write-up >(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version > of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe > this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for > publication? Yes >(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG > members and from key non-WG members? Yes. Cross-review to IS-IS WG held with significant input received. > Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the > depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. >(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar > with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. >(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues 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. > Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion > on this issue. None has been filed. >(1.e) 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? WG agrees. >(1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. >(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks > are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Yes. > Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs > to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type > reviews? Yes. >(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Yes. > 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 strategy for their completion? There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-isis-caps that is in the RFC Editor Queue. As noted above, there is a normative reference to pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt. That document is advancing for publication at the same time. > Are there normative references that are downward > references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these > downward references to support the Area Director in the > Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. There are downrefs as common for new IS-IS Standards Track documents. Those listed are: [ISO] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO DP 10589, February 1990. [RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004. [RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003. It is believed that the first of these is commonly referenced as normative without any issue as it is a stable, external document. It is believed that ISIS WG action is under way to promote RFCs 3567 and 3784 to Standards Track. >(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the > body of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? > If the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. IANA section is correct. IANA allocation is dependent on the registries created for draft-ietf-isis-caps that is in the RFC Editor Queue. Identification of the registries is, therefore, necessarily slightly ambiguous. Note that the IANA registries are, in part, common with pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt. That document is advancing for publication at the same time. > If the document describes an Expert Review process has > Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so > that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG > Evaluation? None required. >(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly > in an automated checker? Not applicable. >(1.k) 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 are various circumstances where it is highly desirable for a Path Computation Client (PCC) to be able to dynamically and automatically discover a set of Path Computation Elements (PCE), along with some information that can be used for PCE selection. When the PCE is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating passively in the IGP, a simple and efficient way to discover PCEs consists of using IGP flooding. For that purpose this document defines extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol for the advertisement of PCE Discovery information within an IS-IS area or within the entire IS-IS routing domain. > Working Group Summary The Working Group had consensus on this document. > Document Quality It is currently unclear whether these protocol extensions have been implemented. Note, however, that the protocol procedures are identical to those in draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt that have been implemented. > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > Who is the Responsible Area Director(s)? Ross Callon, David Ward. > Is an IANA expert needed? No. |
2007-05-09 |
08 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2007-05-08 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-05.txt |
2007-05-03 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-04.txt |
2007-04-09 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-03.txt |
2007-02-13 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-02.txt |
2006-12-12 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-01.txt |
2006-09-20 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-00.txt |