OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-09

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS:

Section 9.1.1 registers values 25 and 26 in a registry for which RFC 3630 says "Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action". 

Section 9.1.2 creates a new registry for which values 0-32767 are reserved for Standards Action, but this is not a Standards Action creating the registry or placing value 26 in it.

I can't figure out which registry 9.1.3 is referring to.

COMMENT:

I don't really see an experiment to be run here.  What outcome would lead to another version of the document to be published on the Standards Track instead of Experimental?  Or conversely, what outcome would lead to us marking the document as Historic? 

That said, I don't really object to Experimental status - to me the implicit experiment if not otherwise stated is "to see if this works and is adopted".

[Ballot comment]
I don't really see an experiment to be run here.  What outcome would lead to another version of the document to be published on the Standards Track instead of Experimental?  Or conversely, what outcome would lead to us marking the document as Historic? 

That said, I don't really object to Experimental status - to me the implicit experiment if not otherwise stated is "to see if this works and is adopted". 

---

Section 9.1.1 registers values 25 and 26 in a registry for which RFC 3630 says "Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action". 

Section 9.1.2 creates a new registry for which values 0-32767 are reserved for Standards Action, but this is not a Standards Action creating the registry or placing value 26 in it.

I can't figure out which registry 9.1.3 is referring to.

[Ballot comment]
For some reason I had trouble getting a good overview of what the document is really doing and how ASON routing works in OSPF; my Discuss is about details, but I would also suggest an editorial pass to make the document more readable as a standalone document.

[Ballot discuss]
The document says:

    Length is set to the sum over all of the local prefixes included in
      the sub-TLV of (4 + (number of 32-bit words in the prefix)/4 ).
      The encoding of each prefix potentially using fewer than four
      32-bit words is described below.

    PrefixLength: length in bits of the prefix.

    PrefixOptions: 8-bit field describing various capabilities
      associated with the prefix (see [RFC5340] Section A.4.2).

    IPv6 Address Prefix "i": encoding of the prefix "i" itself as an
      even multiple of 32-bit words, padding with zero bits as
      necessary.

But I am having trouble understanding what exactly you are saying
here, or at least there are multiple interpretations. Please clarify
the following:

* The formula for length, why do you divide (number of 32-bit words i
  n the prefix)/4? So, if I have two 32-bit words, for instance, this
  becomes 2/4 = 0? Did you perhaps mean *4?

* Related to this, the length field explanation does not say which
  units they are expressed in. I am guessing bytes, because you have
  the fixed term 4 in the formula.

* I presume that there's a relationship between prefix length and
  how many 32 bit words you actually include, but you don't explicitly
  say this. Suggested reformulation: "... encoding of the prefix "i"
  itself as zero, two, or four 32-bit words, depending on whether
  prefix length is zero, less or equal to 64, or longer. Padding with
  zero bits is used as necessary.

[Ballot comment]
Please consider wordsmithing the sentence calling out [RFC2328] and [OSPF-CA] in the security considerations to make it more obvious that those are intended to be possible mechanisms. As it is, the sentence might be read to mean they are required mechanisms.

[Ballot comment]
Nit: in the 3rd para of the Abstract, this sentence is incomplete:

  This document defines to the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol [...]

IANA Last Call questions/comments:

- Throughout the document you specify values for the Sub-TLVs that
you register in Action 1. Should we make sure the RFC Editor knows
that these numbers should be TBDs?

- In Section 7.1 you seem to specify a different sub-TLV hierarchy
than what you request in Action 1 (Section 9.1). Moreover, Section
7.1 specifies a "Note Attriubute top level TLV," but nowhere does
this document request that it be registered. Is something missing?

- In Action 3 (Section 9.2.2) it appears that the draft requests the
allocation of type value 32781; however, that value is outside the
range that IANA Allocates for the associated registry. Should IANA
allocate a number from the allocable space for this value?


Action 1 (Section 9.1):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs

Value Sub-TLV Reference
----------- -------------------------------------- ----------
TBD Associated RA ID
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]
TBD Downstream Associated RA ID
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]
TBD Local TE Router ID
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]
TBD Local and Remote TE Router ID
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]
TBD Node IPv4 Local Prefix
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]
TBD Node IPv6 Local Prefix
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]


Action 2 (Section 9.2.1):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters

Bit Capabilities Reference
-------- -------------------------------------- ---------
TBD Upward routing dissemination capable
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]
TBD Downward routing dissemination capable
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]


Action 3 (Section 9.2.2):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters

Type Value Capabilities Reference
----------- -------------------------------------- ---------
TBD Downstream Associated RA ID
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07.txt

Intended status : Experimental

> (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 personally reviewed the I-D 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?

The I-D has had a good level of discussions and review in the CCAMP
and OSPF working groups. It was developed in response to ITU's ASON
requirements and has also been liaised for review to
Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T and received review
comments. We believe that the work has also been considered by the
OIF.

> (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.  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.

WG had early concern on the need and implementation aspects of
hierarchical
OSPF (this was not the first time for such a proposal), but at the
request of
ITU continued with solution development. My co-chair, Adrian Farrel, had
some
concern on the choice of "Routing Area Identifier" as equal to
the OSPF area ID (preferred to use a combination of the
OSPF protocol instance ID and the OSPF area ID) but it was felt by the
author that within the deployment scenarios that are likely there would
always be needed coordination about area IDs and so this would be
sufficient.
Neither the OSPF nor CCAMP working groups had any concerns
about this choice. This solution has been on-going for several years due
to the
time window for liaisons and a moving target of requirements.
Due to this lapse of time, and to fulfill the WG's initial commitment
and minimize
the risk of development of incompatible extensions outside of the IETF
process
(due to the lack of IETF documentation), the WG feels it is appropriate
at this
time to document our design decisions with the status of experimental.

No IPR disclosures have 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?

As noted in (1.d), there is consensus for this work, but it represents
the
view of a small number of individuals with most people not expressing a
view.
As noted above, this draft results from our relationship with
the ITU-T on ASON to provide a solution to the routing requirements
expressed in RFC 4258 and the protocol gaps identified by RFC 4652,
rather than a desire within the IETF to solve this problem.
For this reason, and until the implementation and deployment of this
work
is more advanced, the I-D is put forward as Experimental.

> (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 threats.

However, the ITU-T has communicated potential discrepancies between
their
requirements and those recorded in RFC 4258. These concerns led
to a face-to-face meeting between the interested parties held at the
71st IETF in March 2008 in Philadelphia. Some of the discrepancies were
identified to be due to a difference of terminology (no resulting
discrepancy was identified) and others were resulting from enhancements
to the requirements from the earlier versions. It was agreed that a
small
design team would be formed from ITU-T experts with IETF experience to
produce a bis of RFC 4258. This team was chartered in March 2008 and
announced to CCAMP (see the message archive
https://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2008/msg00176.html). The charter
included a set of milestones.

At the moment, an early version of the bis was submitted in October
2008 and can be found in the repository at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-many-ccamp-4258bis-00.txt.
This document does not meet the standards of a bis. One of the CCAMP
chairs had a discussion with one of the editors on the needed
changes, no further updates have been done.

When the design team was created with the target of a bis by the July
meeting, it was agreed that CCAMP would suspend work on this solutions
I-D.
However, in view of the delay in producing the bis draft, it was
subsequently
agreed with the ADs and the rapporteur of Question 12 of Study Group 15
that it would be reasonable to resume and complete work on this I-D with
the status of experimental. If further changes would be identified as a
result of the bis, these can be produced in a subsequent revision of
this work.


> (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?

All checks made.


> (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].

References split.
No downrefs.

> (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].  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?

The document defines small protocol enhancements to OSPF. The IANA
section clearly identifies the registries from which allocations are
requested. No new registry is requested.

> (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?

No formal language is used.

> (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.

The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating
an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).

The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite
is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network
technologies including optical networks such as time division
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.

The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of
ASON routing, and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols
are provided in other documents. This document defines to the OSPFv2
Link State Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for
routing in an ASON.

Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
expressed in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 and the ITU-T Recommendations
current when those documents were written. Future extensions of
revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations
are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of
RFC 4258.

>        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?

As noted above, although concerns were raised about the completeness of
RFC 4258 that
sets out the requirements, it has been agreed that this I-D should
progress while work continues to revise that RFC. If changes or
additions should be required as a result of the revision of RFC 4258,
this work can be revised in the future.

>        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 are no known implementations or planned implementations of this
work.