Skip to main content

Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols against Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing Requirements
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter
2006-07-24
03 Bill Fenner State Change Notice email list have been change to ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org from kireeti@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk, dbrungard@att.com
2006-05-22
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-05-15
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-05-15
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-05-15
03 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-05-12
03 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-05-11
2006-05-11
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-05-11
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko by Jari Arkko
2006-05-11
03 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert by Lars Eggert
2006-05-10
03 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by Cullen Jennings
2006-05-10
03 Mark Townsley [Ballot comment]
Six authors.
2006-05-10
03 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley
2006-05-10
03 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
Appendix 1 includes the following:

  Management domain: (see Recommendation G.805) a management domain
  defines a collection of managed objects which are …
[Ballot comment]
Appendix 1 includes the following:

  Management domain: (see Recommendation G.805) a management domain
  defines a collection of managed objects which are grouped to meet
  organizational requirements according to geography, technology,
  policy or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such
  as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing
  control in a consistent manner.

It is not clear what was the intention here, but FCAPS already includes configuration and security. It looks like the editor needs to either take out 'configuration, security' or add all the componets of the quintet to the list, or add the work 'within' as in 'configuration and security within FCAPS'.
2006-05-10
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by Dan Romascanu
2006-05-10
03 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Brian Carpenter
2006-05-09
03 Sam Hartman [Ballot comment]
This no objection presumes pending updates to the security considerations section.
2006-05-09
03 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2006-05-09
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt
2006-05-09
03 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund by Magnus Westerlund
2006-05-09
03 Brian Carpenter [Ballot discuss]
No security considerations. Seems dangerous for a routing document.
2006-05-09
03 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Brian Carpenter
2006-05-09
03 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-05-09
03 Yoshiko Fong
ANA Comments:

No IANA Consideration section.
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.

Clarification: In section 5.3.1. there is a table (table 1) …
ANA Comments:

No IANA Consideration section.
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.

Clarification: In section 5.3.1. there is a table (table 1) that lists characteristics.
Should this list be put in any IANA registry? Please confirm yes or no.
2006-05-08
03 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault by Lisa Dusseault
2006-05-08
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2006-05-06
03 Ross Callon State Change Notice email list have been change to kireeti@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk, dbrungard@att.com from kireeti@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk
2006-05-03
03 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-05-11 by Ross Callon
2006-05-03
03 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2006-05-03
03 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2006-05-03
03 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2006-05-03
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-05-03
03 (System) Last call text was added
2006-05-03
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-05-03
03 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon
2006-04-21
03 Ross Callon
This is an informational document that could be thought of as serving a liaision function, since it discusses how IETF routing protocols (particularly OSPF and …
This is an informational document that could be thought of as serving a liaision function, since it discusses how IETF routing protocols (particularly OSPF and IS-IS) can support the ASON work that is being done in the ITU. It has had review both from the IETF side and from the ITU side (through liaison statements that have been exchanged).

Chairs PROTO Writeup:

> 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft
> (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to
> the IESG for publication?

Yes.


> 2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key
> non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the
> reviews that have been performed?

Good set of authors across CCAMP, IGP WGs, ITU-T and OSPF.
Also reviewed closely by ITU-T SG15.

I think this is all good.


> 3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
> particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity,
> someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

Routing Directorate could usefully look again, but I think we have all
bases covered.
ASON input, in particular, is very well covered from CCAMP and ITU.


> 4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you
> believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you
> are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns
> whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have
> been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes
> to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No concerns. All good.
Draft is needed for political more than technical reasons, but it does
serve a useful technical purpose as well.


> 5. 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 is mainly silent.
ASON is a peripheral interest for many people and ASON routing is a little
futuristic.
But those who are involved in this area have been positive.


> 6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email to the Responsible Area Director.

Nothing threatened or rumoured.


> 7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID
> Checklist items ?

The chairs have done their best.


> 8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?

Split is OK


> - Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready
> for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the
> RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it
> will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication
> as RFCs.)

As you note, the normative reference ASON-RR is now RFC4258

And as Deborah points out, the informational reference LMP-T is now
RFC4394

I think the informational reference OSPF-NODE was advancing to OSPF WG
last call, last time I heard.


> 9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard,
> Informational?)

Informational


> For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement
> includes a write-up section with the following sections:

Hoorah for informational I-Ds!

Cheers,
Adrian
2006-04-17
03 Ross Callon Shepherding AD has been changed to Ross Callon from Alex Zinin
2006-04-17
03 Ross Callon State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2005-11-08
03 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2005-11-07
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-02.txt
2005-07-20
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-01.txt
2005-04-21
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-00.txt