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?
This document is requested for publication as Standards Track RFC.
This is appropriate because the document defines GMPLS OSPF-TE extensions that
are required to support DWDM networks that support the flexible DWDM grid as
defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1.
Moreover, this document is related to Standards Track RFC7579 and Standards
Track RFC7699 as it defines the OSPF-TE extensions for the new flexible DWDM
grid in addition to the existing fixed DWDM grid.
"Standards Track" RFC type is correctly indicated in the title page header.
(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.
The document defines necessary OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS in order to support
new flexible grid data plane functionality that is defined in ITU-T Recommendation
G.694.1 for DWDM networks. Currently, OSPF-TE for GMPLS can only be used for
fixed grid DWDM networks. The document extends RFC4203 and RFC7580.
Document abstract:
"This memo describes the OSPF-TE extensions in support of GMPLS control of
networks that include devices that use the new flexible optical grid."
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?
This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some
comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.
Version 02 of the document contained 3 options how to encode “available resources”.
When the document was presented at the Prague meeting in July 2015, it was agreed
to reduce these options preferably to a single encoding. The CCAMP did a poll on the
CCAMP mailing list and there was a clear majority vote in favor of the encoding
currently defined in the document. The other 2 options were removed.
Finally, there were no problems with reaching WG consensus.
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?
The work has had contributions from a larger group of people.
Additionally, the work has had external review form the IDEALIST EU project.
One of the IDEALIST goals is to foster elastic optical networks equipped with
a multi-domain and multi-technology control plane enabling adaptive network
and service interworking. Several optical equipment vendors are participating
in this project.
Based on the document shepherd's knowledge, a significant number of vendors
are considering the implementation or have already an implementation of the
protocol extensions for their DWDM products supporting the flexible grid.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Dieter Beller 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.
The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document:
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-06.txt and believes it is ready for
publication when it will have been updated based on the improvements
suggested hereafter:
The Abstract should be enhanced. It is fairly short. Some text from the
Abstract of RFC7698 could be used. The Abstract should explicitly mention
ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1 (see abstract of RFC7698).
The last paragraph of the Introduction should contain a reference to RFC4203.
It shall also state that this document defines extensions to RFC7580.
Editorial comments/corrections have been sent to the authors.
Corrections are required in lines 120, 247, and 509.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd has no concerns.
(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 such specific review is required.
(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.
There are no such 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.
The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they
had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded.
(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 disclosures have been made.
(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?
There has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus on
the document.
(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 threats or discontent.
(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.
idnits is clean apart from false positives. See:
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-06.txt
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such reviews are needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
All references are correctly identified.
(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 are no such normative references.
(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.
There are no such downward normative references.
(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.
The document defines OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS in order to support
new data plane functionality that has been defined by the ITU-T for
DWDM networks. Therefore, it is solely an extension to RFC4203 and
RFC7580, respectively, and does not change the status of RFC4203,
RFC7580, or any other existing RFC.
(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).
The IANA section of the document is properly written and contains all
relevant information.
The document defines one required extension of an existing IANA registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml
and defines a new sub-registry under:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml
The suggested name for the new sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs of
Flexi-Grid-LSC SCSI (Switch Capability-Specific Information)" is reasonable.
The document also provides suggested registry values, which are appropriate.
(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.
The new sub-registry is defined properly.
(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.
The document does not contain such sections.