Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions for the Link Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09

[Ballot discuss]
(modified following discussions with Lou Berger)

It looks to me that beyond mismatches termination of the data channel confirmation procedure because the retry limit was reached (the other side of the link did not respons in time) should also be reported to the control plane - the reason being that potential stranded resources may exist on these links

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.4 states that in order to use this mechanism all nodes MUST have the extensions described in this document for compatibility. Coording to the document editor the mismatched mode environment is an issue that is dealt with in this document via administrative requirements.  The fix to the problem is a planned ccamp document that will update 4204 to enable conforming nodes to identify which extensions are supported by an LMP code.

I belive that this information should be included in the Backwards Cpmpatibility section.

[Ballot discuss]
(modified following discussions with Lou Berger)

It looks to me that beyond mismatches termination of the data channel confirmation procedure because the retry limit was reached (the other side of the link did not respons in time) should also be reported to the control plane - the reason being that potential stranded resources may exist on these links

[Ballot discuss]
1. I think that the header should indicate that the document updates RFC 4204 (if approved). Especially on the light of the fact that section 4.4 states that in order to use this mechanism all nodes MUST have the extensions described in this document for compatibility.

2. It looks to me that beyond mismatches termination of the data channel confirmation procedure because the retry limit was reached (the other side of the link did not respons in time) should also be reported to the control plane - the reason being that potential stranded resources may exist on these links

[Ballot comment]
5. Procedures

  The data channel status confirmation related LMP messages MAY be sent
  between adjacent nodes which are triggered by timer periodically or
  driven by some events to confirm the channel status for the data
  links. It's a local police decision to start the data channel status
  confirmation process.

I am sure that British and other law enforcement agencies are already busy as it is ;-).


6. Security Considerations

  The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
  of themselves constitute a security risk since they do not cause any
  change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were
  intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane
  and so the use of the LMP security measures are RECOMMENDED.

A pointer to a document that describes LMP security measures is needed here.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a minor point and I am happy for it to be resolved using an RFC Editor note (or an argument that I am mistaken):

4.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages

  When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, if the
  data channel status confirmation procedure is not supported but the
  message is recognized, a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message
  containing an ERROR_CODE indicating "Channel Status Confirmation
  Procedure not supported" MUST be sent.

  If the data channel status confirmation procedure is supported, but
  the node is unable to begin the procedure, a
  ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message containing an ERROR_CODE
  indicating "Unwilling to Confirm" MUST be sent. If a
  ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message is received with such an
  ERROR_CODE, the node which originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus

I think these 2 error codes need new entries in the IANA registry established by RFC 4204.

[Ballot comment]
5. Procedures

  The data channel status confirmation related LMP messages MAY be sent
  between adjacent nodes which are triggered by timer periodically or
  driven by some events to confirm the channel status for the data
  links. It's a local police decision to start the data channel status
  confirmation process.

I am sure that British and other law enforcement agencies are already busy as it is ;-).


6. Security Considerations

  The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
  of themselves constitute a security risk since they do not cause any
  change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were
  intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane
  and so the use of the LMP security measures are RECOMMENDED.

A pointer to a document that describes LMP security measures is needed here.

IANA comments:


Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "LMP Message Type Name Space" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters

Value Description Reference
------- --------------------------------- ---------
[TBD/32] ConfirmDataChannelStatus [RFC-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-08]
[TBD/33] ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck [RFC-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-08]
[TBD/34] ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack [RFC-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-08]



Action #2:
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "LMP Object Class name space and Class type (C-Type)" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters

In object 12 DATA_LINK Sub-object
add new value

Value Description Reference
------ ------------------------ ---------
[TBD/9] Data Channel Status [RFC-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-08]

The requested values will be assigned if they are still available.

Proto-write-up for: draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-07.txt
Intended status: Proposed Standard

>(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?

Lou Berger is the Document Shepherd.

He has reviewed the document and believe this version is ready for
publication at the intended status.

>(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?

The document has received adequate review and discussion. It has been
revised to be consistent with WG opinion and other related activities in
the IETF.

>(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.

>(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?

Yes. The document has idenitifed a basic issue in LMP with respect to
backward compatibility. In particular, LMP does not have a basic
mechanism to allow an LMP implementation to determine when a neighbor
supports new/extended functionality. We have agreed that as this is a
basic LMP issue it should not be fixed in this document, but rather a
future standalone document. Current authors have expressed interes in
bringing a draft to the WG on this topic.

> 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 IPR disclosures were found.

>(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?

Consensus appears to be good.

>(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarize 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 threats. No discontent.

>(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. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
> does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
> the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

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?

No.

> If such normative references exist, what is the
> strategy for their completion?

N/A.

> 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].

No downward references.

>
>(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
> Considerations 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]. If the
> document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
> Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
> the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The IANA section looks good.

>(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 an extention to the Link Management Protocol
(LMP) to provide a control plane tool that can assist in the
location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent LSRs to confirm
data channel statuses, and provides triggers for notifying the
management plane if any discrepancies are found.


> Working Group Summary
> Was there anything in the 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 received adequate attention and discussion in its early
revisions. The document has been laregly stable for quite some time,
mainly needing revisions as part of the publication process.

> 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?
>

There have been no public statements related to intent to implement, but
it is expected that some/all of the primary Authors plan to implement.

> Personnel
> Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Lou Berger.

> Who is the
> Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel

> If the document requires IANA
> experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
> in this document are .'
>