Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12

[Ballot comment]
The "enhanced" security considerations proposed in response to Mirja's comments resolve my discuss. I am clearing on the assumption it makes it into the draft. I've moved my discuss point into the comments for now:


If I am reading things correctly, the security considerations just say the extensions in this draft may raise new security considerations, but doesn't say anything about what they might be. That's an incomplete analysis. What new considerations actually (not "may") exist? What potential attacks may be enabled by these extensions, if any? Are there things people can do to mitigate them?

[Ballot discuss]
If I am reading things correctly, the security considerations just say the extensions in this draft may raise new security considerations, but doesn't say anything about what they might be. That's an incomplete analysis. What new considerations actually (not "may") exist? What potential attacks may be enabled by these extensions, if any? Are there things people can do to mitigate them?

[Ballot comment]
Minor comments:
1) I guess the I flag in the INTER-LAYER Object is actually not needed as the present of the INTER-LAYER Object already indicates that inter-layer information is requested, but that is not an issue.
2) Is the INTER-LAYER Object Flags registry really needed, given the limited amount of flag space???
3) Security Consideration: "Inter-layer traffic engineering with PCE may raise new security
  issues when PCE-PCE communication is done between different layer
  networks for inter-layer path computation."
  This text is not very helpful as this section is meant to be used to document these new issues.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has questions about two of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the PCEP Objects registry in the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

four assignments are to be made, as follows:

Object-Class Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: INTER-LAYER
Object-Type: 1: Inter-layer
2-15: Unassigned
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Object-Class Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: SWITCH-LAYER
Object-Type: 1: Switch-layer
2-15: Unassigned
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Object-Class Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: REQ-ADAP-CAP
Object-Type: 1: Req-Adap-Cap
2-15: Unassigned
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Object-Class Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: SERVER-INDICATION
Object-Type: 1: Server-indication
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> Should Object-Types 0 be listed as "Unassigned," listed as "Reserved," or not included?

IANA Question --> Are Object-Types 2-15 unassigned for Object-Class Value SERVER-INDICATION?

Also, IANA believes that Object-Class Value and Name are reversed in section 7.1 in the current document and should be corrected.

Second, a new registry is to be created called the Inter-Layer Object Path Property Bits registry.

IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Does it require a new registry page, or does it belong at an existing URL? If the former, does it belong under an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols?

The new registry will be managed via IETF Review as defined in RFC 5226. These are the initial registrations:

Bit | Flag | Multi-Layer Path Property | Reference
----+------+-------------------------------+---------------
0-28| | Unassigned |
29 | T | Triggered Signalling Allowed | [ RFC-to-be ]
30 | M | Multi-Layer Requested | [ RFC-to-be ]
31 | I | Inter-Layer Allowed | [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the METRIC Object T Field registry under the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers heading at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

two registrations will be made:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Number of adaptations on a path
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Number of layers on a path
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these three 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.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: db3546@att.com, "Jonathan Hardwick" , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extensions to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG
(pce) to consider the following document:
- 'Extensions to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol
  (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering'
  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 2017-03-01. 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


  The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
  functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label
  Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.

  MPLS and GMPLS networks may be constructed from layered service
  networks.  It is advantageous for overall network efficiency to
  provide end-to-end traffic engineering across multiple network layers
  through a process called inter-layer traffic engineering.  PCE is a
  candidate solution for such requirements.

  The PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
  protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs.  This
  document presents PCEP extensions for inter-layer traffic
  engineering.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext/ballot/


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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp: PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model (None - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.

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)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Proposed Standard - indicated in the title page header.
  This is the correct type as the draft proposes extensions
  to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP).


(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

  The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
  functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label
  Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
  MPLS and GMPLS networks may be constructed from layered service
  networks.  It is advantageous for overall network efficiency to
  provide end-to-end traffic engineering across multiple network layers
  through a process called inter-layer traffic engineering.  This
  document presents PCEP extensions for inter-layer traffic
  engineering.


Working Group Summary

  There has been no particular controversy and the consensus behind
  the document is good.


Document Quality

  Some implementations exist.  There were a few detailed reviews during
  working group last call.


Personnel

  Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd.  Deborah Brungard is the
  Responsible Area Director.


(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 the text around the time of working group last call.
  In my opinion, the document is ready to be published.


(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? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No.


(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.

  None.


(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.


(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 has been carefully reviewed by a few interested individuals.
  Most of the working group was silent during working group last call,
  however this is probably due to the document lifetime being long and
  the document being stable for over a year.  I judge there is enough
  consensus behind the document to publish it.


(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  Because the draft originates from before 10 November 2008, idnits reports
  the following warning.

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  However, the document states in its preamble:

    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Thus my understanding is that the authors have granted the BCP78 rights
  to the IETF trust.


(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?

  There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] but this
  has recently been submitted to the IESG for publication.
  There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] but
  this will soon be submitted to the IESG for publication (pending
  responses to an IPR poll).


(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).

  IANA actions are clearly specified, covering all protocol extensions.
  One new PCEP registry is created and is fully specified.


(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.