GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-03

[Ballot comment]
Normally there's be a section that highlights changes between 5467 and this draft.  Are the only changes really those two listed in the last para of Section 1?  What about the errata on 5647 (I realize it's an editorial errata and I think it's adopted but it'd be better to call it out explicitly)?

[Ballot comment]
I am moving from a discuss to a comment on the basis of the
following proposal by Adrian:

1. Revise this I-D to keep the same code points as were used before
2. Lou and I will undertake a review of the RSVP registries in order
  to sort them out and make sure this problem won't arise again.
3. We will produce a revision of RFC 3936 that updates the
  main registries to allow for experimentation and applies "what
  we know now" to partitioning the codespace. This will be done
  in a backward compatible way.


Original Discuss text:

This document proposes no change to the RFC5467 other than to change the codepoints. This will invalidate any existing implementations (should they exist), and hazard an application that uses the reclaimed codepoints.

The motivation seems to be to free up the expert review codepoints used by RFC5467 for other experiments. If that is the only motivation, then it would seem safer and less disruptive to reassign three standards action codepint to expert review and confirm the RFC5467 codepoints as now in use by this IETF standards track document.

[Ballot discuss]
This document proposes no change to the RFC5467 other than to change the codepoints. This will invalidate any existing implementations (should they exist), and hazard an application that uses the reclaimed codepoints.

The motivation seems to be to free up the expert review codepoints used by RFC5467 for other experiments. If that is the only motivation, then it would seem safer and less disruptive to reassign three standards action codepint to expert review and confirm the RFC5467 codepoints as now in use by this IETF standards track document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, the needed IANA
Actions have already been completed, and require only that the
references be updated.

In the Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types registry of the
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at:

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

The following assignments, needed for this document, require updated
references:

A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
range (120) with the following definition:

Class Types or C-types:

Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)

A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb range
(121) with the following definition:

Class Types or C-types:

Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)

A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb range
(122) with the following definition:

Class Types or C-types:

Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)'
  as a 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 2011-06-06. 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 defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric
bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  The presented
approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport
of traffic-related parameters.  This document moves the experiment
documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467.



The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis/


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

PROTO-write-up for: draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-01
> Intended status: Standards Track
>
> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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?
>
> Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd.
> She has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to
> the IESG for publication.
>
> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?
>
> Yes. 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 or additional review needed.
>
> (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. 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.
>
> No concerns or issues. This document is taking a previously
> experimental RFC (5467) and moving it to standards track based on the
> requirement for this function in MPLS-TP. No IPR found in the
> datatracker.
>
> (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?
>
> There is solid consensus behind this document.
>
> (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 the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist
> and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks
> are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
>
> Yes. No issues identified by idnits. No other reviews are required.
>
> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? 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? 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].
>
> Split looks good.
>
> (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 [RFC5226]. 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?
>
> No new IANA assignments.
>
> (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?
>
> Yes, no automated checks needed.
>
> (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
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 defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric
bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented
approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport
of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment
documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467.

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?

Nothing noteworthy. The document is considered to be both stable and
complete.

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?

No implementations have been publicly discussed.