Evaluation of Existing GMPLS Encoding against G.709v3 Optical Transport Networks (OTNs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-13

[Ballot comment]
I have a question regarding this document. I am not making it a DISCUSS because (a) my availability to have a DISCUSSion this week and next is limited and (b) even if the answer to this question is the worst imaginable, I'm not convinced we should hold up publication to DISCUSS it:

What charter item for CCAMP does this document fulfill? I can't figure out what major output of the WG this document is intended to advance, and I don't even see a milestone for this item in the milestone list. Is this supposed to be input to some other document? Neither the intro nor the abstract make this obvious.

[Ballot comment]
I did have one comment, which you might consider along with any other feedback you receive during IESG evaluation.

In section 3.2.  Control Plane considerations

  What is shown in the example is that the TS granularity processing is
  a per layer issue: even if the ODU3 H-LSP is created with TS
  granularity client at 2.5Gbps, the ODU2 H-LSP must guarantee a
  1.25Gbps TS granularity client. 

I don't understand what "must guarantee a client" means here. Is that a term of art in optical networking? I'm guessing this is saying something like "must guarantee support for a client", but I'm guessing.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11, 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. 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Evaluation of existing GMPLS encoding against G.709v3 Optical Transport Networks (OTN)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Evaluation of existing GMPLS encoding against G.709v3 Optical
  Transport Networks (OTN)'
  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 2013-09-19. 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


  ITU-T recommendation G.709 [G.709-2012] has introduced new fixed and
  flexible Optical Data Unit (ODU) containers in Optical Transport
  Networks (OTNs).

  This document provides an evaluation of existing Generalized
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) routing and signaling protocols
  against the G.709 [G.709-2012] OTN networks.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model/ballot/


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

This document is held pending IETF last call.
There are currently too many Routing Area documents from MPLS and CCAMP in IETF last call and a pause is needed to allow review from interested parties.

AD review
======
Hi,

I have done my normal AD review of your document after receiving the
Publication Request.  As usual, the purpose of the review is to catch
issues and nits as early as possible so that they don't get in the way
during IETF last call and IESG evaluation.

The review below includes a few nits and raises a couple of questions.
All of the issues are open for discussion, and I am quite prepared to
hear back that the WG considered things and reached consensus.

For the moment, I have marked the I-D as "Revised I-D Needed".

Thanks for the work,

Adrian

===

As I asked in my email to the CCAMP list, I find it odd that this
document makes no reference to RFC 5307 and the use of IS-IS as a
routing protocol in GMPLS control of OTN.

---

Section 1 says:

  Specific routing and signaling extensions are defined in [OTN-OSPF]
  and [OTN-RSVP].

I think you might extend this text to note that those two documents and
the extensions they define, specifically address the gaps identified in
this document.

---

I found it hard to see the clear gap analysis in section 9.  I think
what it says is generic and not specific to OTN - i.e., there is a need
to distinguish switching capabilities from adaptation/termination
capabilities.

Am I missing something?  Why does OTN have this issue?  Should this be
handled as a technology-independent issue?

---

Section 10 has

  The IETF foresees that up to eight priorities must be supported and
  that all of them have to be advertised independently on the number of
  priorities supported by the implementation.  Considering that the
  advertisement of all the different supported signal types will
  originate large LSAs, it is advised to advertise only the information
  related to the really supported priorities.

The language here is a bit odd to me.
... *foresees* that *up*to* eight priorities *must* be supported ...  ?

How about...

[RFC4202] defines 8 priorities for resource availability and usage.

---

Section 11

  Modifications to ISCD/IACD, if needed, have to be addressed in the
  related encoding documents.

I think this document needs to state whether those modifications are
needed.

---

Section 12

  The ODUk label format defined in [RFC4328] could be updated to
  support new signal types defined in [G.709-2012] but would hardly be
  further enhanced to support possible new signal types.

What does "hardly" mean in this text?  So you mean "it would be
difficult"?  If so....

  The ODUk label format defined in [RFC4328] could be updated to
  support new signal types defined in [G.709-2012] but it would be
  difficult to further enhanced it to support possible new signal
  types.

---

Section 12

  Furthermore such label format may have scalability issues due to the
  high number of labels needed when signaling large LSPs.  For example,
  when an ODU3 is mapped into an ODU4 with 1.25Gbps tributary slots, it
  would require the utilization of thirty-one labels (31*4*8=992 bits)
  to be allocated while an ODUflex into an ODU4 may need up to eighty
  labels (80*4*8=2560 bits).

The maths is flawless.  Does the WG believe that this scenario is
likely?  Or is it just a theoretical possibility?

I ask because I am cautious about us engineering for fringe cases.

---

I think a number of your Informative references are actually used as
Normative.  I would list

  [RFC3471], [RFC3473], [RFC4202], [RFC4203], [RFC4328], and [RFC5339].

> (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? 

This document identifies needed modifications to exiting
protocols, but does not itself define any protocol mechanisms or
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 provides an evaluation of exiting GMPLS signaling
and routing protocols against Optical Transport Networks (OTN)
specified in ITU-T Recommendation G.709 as published in 2012. A
previous version of G.709 was supported by GMPLS signaling per
RFC4328.  This document is one of four informational and
standards track documents going through the publication process as
a set.

> 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?

Not for this document.

> 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?

This document provides background and an approach to extending
exiting RFC for which there are implementations, but does not
itself define any protocol mechanisms.  The existing RFCs include
RFC3471, RFC3473, RFC4202, RFC4203, RFC4204, RFC4328, RFC4655.

> 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 two 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.  As part of the 2nd WG LC, both the OSPF and PCE WGs were
notified.

> (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.

As part of the 2nd WG LC, both the OSPF and PCE WGs were
notified.

> (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, via messages to/on the CCAMP WG list.

> (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 has been disclosed for this document.

> (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? 

Strong among interested parties. No objections from others.

> (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.)

Not to my knowledge.

> (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 tools idnits.

> (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?

None.

> (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.

As this is just an informative document, this document does not
change the status of any 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).

As this is just an informative document, there is no IANA section.

> (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.

N/A

> (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 statement received:

sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13969.html
daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13942.html
diego.caviglia at ericsson.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13946.html
zhangfatai at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13958.html
danli at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13963.html

IPR statement missing:

pietro_vittorio.grandi at alcatel-lucent.com --

Waiting on IPR statements from:

sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.com, pietro_vittorio.grandi at alcatel-lucent.com, daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com, diego.caviglia at ericsson.com, zhangfatai at huawei.com, danli at huawei.com

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13934.html