Use of Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-08

[Ballot comment]
The document states:

  o  Loopback address: A loopback address is a stable IP address of the
      advertising router that is always reachable if there is any IP
      connectivity to it [RFC3477], [RFC3630]. Thus, for example, an
      IPv4 127/24 address is excluded from this definition.

  o  TE Router ID: A stable IP address of an LSR that is always
      reachable in the control plane if there is any IP connectivity to
      the LSR, e.g., a loopback address. The most important requirement
      is that the address does not become unusable if an interface on
      the LSR is down [RFC3477], [RFC3630].

I find these explanations confusing. First, did you intend
to say that the address must be unique within the network
and that's the reason why 127.0.0.1 and ::1 do not qualify?
Secondly, what is the difference between the first and the
second item?

Acknowledgement section needs to capitalize names of persons.

[Ballot comment]
Section 8 defines a method of defining or monitoring an LSP tunnel using the MIB modules defined in RFC 3812 and RFC4802. This is a little bit unusual for users of the MIB documents who would not have any indication in the respective documents about availability of the supplementary information, but it is not a reason not to publish this Informational document. It would be useful however to consider the following editorial comments:

1. Add a note in the introduction to Section 8 that normative text for MIB objects is in the relevant RFCs that contain the MIB modules.

2. Use the normative names of the MIB modules MPLS-TE-STD-MIB for the MPLS TE MIB and GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB for the GPLS TE MIB.

3. Clarify which of the MIB modules is refered to in the first phrase of Section 8.2 'The TE MIB module may be used for managing and monitoring ...'

[Ballot comment]
Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter...

  This draft is on the right track but needs an overview section.

  The document states that it clarifies the use of addresses in GMPLS.
  For an outsider, if this is clarification, the mud must be thick.
  To my taste, after the terminology section, there should be an
  architectural overview (or a pointer to a suitable existing overview).
  It's very tough to jump straight into the details. Having just spent
  half a day working on the generic locator-ID split, I found the way
  this document uses "address" to refer sometimes to locator-address
  and sometimes to identifier-address quite unclear.

  I am puzzled by the fact that section 3 introduces the concept of
  (un)numbered links but then sections 4 and 5 speak of (un)numbered
  addresses. Which do you mean? Are they different? Why doesn't the
  terminology section define (un)numbered links and (un)numbered
  addresses, assuming they are different. Also, how can a link have
  an address? I can see how one end of a p2p link can have an address,
  but that makes two addresses per link. This is the sort of thing I
  would expect to see clarified in an overview section.

  I see in the writeup that there was debate about the document
  category.  IMHO since the draft summarizes and collates information
  from other standards track documents, but (in principle at least)
  defines nothing new, Informational is the correct category.

  I can't comment on the accuracy of the details in sections 4-8, but
  I'm sure the WG has the expertise to get that right. The Security
  Considerations strike me as weak, but I will leave that to the
  Security Area review.

  Editorial:

  The Abstract and the Introduction both include:
  >
  > This document does not define new procedures of processes
  >
  s/of/or/

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS
I suspect this document is going to be very useful, but I'd like to understand the plan to update the standards here.  For example, this document says
  "a node should be able to accept and process link advertisements containing both numbered and unnumbered addresses"
and in section 6.1.3
  "an implementation.. must be prepared to receive an RRO that contains any of these objects"

IMO, these statements need to go into a non-Informative document at some point.

COMMENTS

A couple more references would be nice:
- in 3, reference where numbered links are defined
- in 4.2.7, reference where PHOP is defined

I was confused by references to "control plane entity" and "data plane entity".  As far as I can tell the word "entity" is unneeded and undefined, and "control plane" and "data plane" are defined in dependency documents.  I believe "control plane resource" similarly should be simplified to "control plane".

PROTO Write-up

>(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
>
> Adrian Farrel
>
> 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?

Yes

>(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG
> members and from key non-WG members?

Yes

> Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the
> depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

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.

>(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.

No concerns.

> 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.

None has been filed.

>(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?

WG agrees.

>(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
> 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.

Yes.

> Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs
> to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type
> reviews?

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

All OK.

> 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.

>(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 [RFC2434].

IANA section is correct. No IANA action required.

> 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?

None required.

>(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?

Not applicable.

>(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

This document clarifies the use of addresses in Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. The aim is to
facilitate interworking of GMPLS-capable Label Switching Routers
(LSRs). The document is based on experience gained in implementation,
interoperability testing, and deployment.

The document describes how to interpret address and identifier fields
within GMPLS protocols, and how to choose which addresses to set in
those fields for specific control plane usage models. It also
discusses how to handle IPv6 sources and destinations in the MPLS and
GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)
modules.

> Working Group Summary

The Working Group had consensus on this document.

However, there was considerable debate as to whether this should be an
Informational RFC, a BCP, or a Standards Track RFC. The WG was unable
to get a clear understanding of how this document should fit in to the
defined categories.
- It was felt that much if not all of the clarifications present in
this document were already present as procedural rules in existing
RFCs (which are referenced). Thus, making this document Standards
Track would have caused duplication of definitions. However, earlier
versions of this document used RFC2119 language and that appeared to
make it a Standards Track document.
- BCP was seriously considered, however it was felt that for most of
the clarifications the procedures were already defined in the
referenced RFCs and so no BCP was strictly needed.
Thus the document is requested for publication as an Informational RFC
and has been appropriately updated so that no RFC2119 language is used.

> Document Quality

This document is based upon experience collected from implementers and
from interoperability events.

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

Adrian Farrel

> Who is the Responsible Area Director(s)?

Ross Callon, David Ward.

> Is an IANA expert needed?

No.

Thanks,
Adrian