Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-11

[Ballot comment]
I am missing some text about byte order for 16bit fields.

4. Security Considerations

  This document introduces no new security considerations to
  [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]. For a general discussion on MPLS and
  GMPLS related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security
  framework [RFC5920].

Surely lasers are dangerous weapons and kids shouldn't be allowed to play with them.

[Ballot comment]
"In the scenario of Figure 1, consider the setting up of a bidirectional LSP from ingress switch 1 to egress switch 9 using
GMPLS RSVP-TE."

Figure 1 shows them as nodes

=======

To deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time domains

I think that you mean ... optical switching and time division multiplexing domains.

=======
In a case, the label indicates the wavelength to be used for the LSP.

Do you mean "In this case.." ?

======

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, three IANA
Actions are required to be completed.

First, a new subregistry of the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml

is to be created. The name of this new subregistry is to be: "Grid
Subregistry" and the reference is to be [RFC-to-be]. Values in this
registry can range from 0 - 7 inclusive. New registrations require
Standards Action. The initial values registrered in this new subregistry
are:

Value Grid Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
0 Reserved [RFC-to-be]
1 ITU-T DWDM [RFC-to-be]
2 ITU-T CWDM [RFC-to-be]
3-7 Not assigned [RFC-to-be]

Second, a new subregistry of the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml

is to be created. The name of this new subregistry is to be: "DWDM
Channel Spacing Subregistry" and the reference is to be [RFC-to-be].
Values in this registry can range from 0 - 15 inclusive. New
registrations require Standards Action. The initial values registered in
this new subregistry are:

Value Channel Spacing (GHz) Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
0 Reserved [RFC-to-be]
1 100 [RFC-to-be]
2 50 [RFC-to-be]
3 25 [RFC-to-be]
4 12.5 [RFC-to-be]
5-15 Not assigned [RFC-to-be]

Third, a new subregistry of the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml

is to be created. The name of this new subregistry is to be: "CWDM
Channel Spacing Subregistry" and the reference is to be [RFC-to-be].
Values in this registry can range from 0 - 15 inclusive. New
registrations require Standards Action. The initial values registrered
in this new subregistry are:

Value Channel Spacing (nm) Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
0 Reserved [RFC-to-be]
1 20 [RFC-to-be]
2-15 Not assigned [RFC-to-be]

IANA understands that these are the only actions that need to be
completed upon approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching Routers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
  Routers'
  as a Proposed
Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-01-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels/

State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation.
AD Review

===

Hi,

I have performed an AD review of your draft.

Don't panic!

I review all drafts that I am responsible for before putting them
forward for IETF last call. The main objective is to catch nits and
minor issues that would show up during the last call or in IESG
review. The intention is to help polish your document and make sure
it is clean and shiny so that other reviewers will stick to the
technical details.

I think your small draft is actually a very significant contribution to
the GMPLS family.

Most of my comments are pretty trivial, but a couple have more meat
on them and I'd like to see a quick respin of the document before I
issue the IETF last call. As soon as I see a new revision posted,
I'll set the ball in motion.

Of course, all of my issues are up for discussion.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

---

idnits throws up a number of minor issues...

> ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest
>    one being 1 character in excess of 72.

This seems to be line 46

> == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the
>    _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if
>    approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

This is in the document header...

s/Updates: RFC3471/Updates: 3471 (if approved)/

> == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but
>    was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the
>    disclaimer? (See the Legal Provisions document at
>    http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
>    -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning.
>    Boilerplate error?

Just need to check with you that the authors are happy to not include
the boilerplate and are assigning the copyright. Usually not a problem,   
but if you have trouble tracking down the authors, just add the
disclaimer boilerplate - it is quite safe!

> == Unused Reference: 'RFC3209' is defined on line 433, but no
>    explicit reference was found in the text

You can just remove the reference.

---

The Abstract needs to be self-contained, so cannot include citations of
RFCs or other documents.

You also need to spell out acronyms.

Can I suggest:

OLD
  Technology in the optical domain is constantly evolving and as a
  consequence new equipment providing lambda switching capability has
  been developed and is currently being deployed. [RFC3471] has
  defined that a wavelength label (section 3.2.1.1) "only has
  significance between two neighbors" and global wavelength semantics
  is not considered. In order to facilitate interoperability in a
  network composed of next generation lambda switch-capable equipment,
  this document defines a standard lambda label format, which is
  compliant with both [G.694.1](DWDM-grid) or [G.694.2](CWDM-grid). 
  This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
  Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the label format when Lambda
  Switching is requested in an all optical network.
NEW                     
  Technology in the optical domain is constantly evolving and as a
  consequence new equipment providing lambda switching capability has
  been developed and is currently being deployed.
 
  Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is a family of protocols that can be used
  to operate networks built from a range of technologies including
  wavelength (or lambda) switching. For this purpose, GMPLS defined
  that a wavelength label only has significance between two neighbors
  and global wavelength semantics are not considered.
 
  In order to facilitate interoperability in a network composed of next
  generation lambda switch-capable equipment, this document defines a
  standard lambda label format that is compliant with Dense Wavelength
  Division Multiplexing and Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing
  grids defined by the International Telecommunication Union
  Telecommunication Standardization Sector. The label format defined in
  this document can be used in GMPLS signaling and routing protocols.
END

---

You are not required to include a Table of Contents in a document of less
than fifteen pages (but you are allowed to).

---

Section 1

You need to expand DWDM and CWDM on first use.
You can then remove the expansions from Section 2.

---

Section 2

Could you capitalise the section header to match the others.
                                                                                         
---

Section 2

s/vendor's/vendors'/
s/consists of number/consists of a number/

---

Section 2

s/a LSP/an LSP/

---

Section 2 (last line)

Expand "LSR" on first use.

---                                                               

Section 3.3

  We do not need to define a new type as the information stored is
  either a port label or a wavelength label. Only the wavelength label
  as above needs to be defined.

This is very true, but I think the text does not belong here.
I would try to work it into Section 3.1

---
                                                                                               
Section 4

  This document introduces no new security considerations to [RFC3473].
  For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues,
  see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].

I think you should
s/[RFC3473]/[RFC3471] and [RFC3473]/
because this I-D updates 3471.
                                                       
---

Section 5

Why did you decide that there is no requirement for IANA to track the
codepoints (Grid and C.S.) used in the DWDM and CWDM Wavelength Labels?

It looks like you could have three registries {Grid, DWDM C.S., and
CWDM C.S.)

---

Section 8

OLD
8. Author's Address
NEW
8. Authors' Addresses
END

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 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?

Yes. The document has been extensively reviewed and the Shepherd
believes all issues have been addressed.

(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 or additional review needed.

(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.

No concerns or issues. No IPR found in the datatracker.

(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?

There is strong consensus behind this document.

(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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?

Yes. There is one instance of a line too long, this can be fixed as
part of the publication process. No other reviews are required.

(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].

Split looks good.

(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 [RFC5226]. 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?

No IANA implications.

(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 is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) signaling. [RFC3471] defined that a wavelength label
(section 3.2.1.1) "only has significance between two neighbors" and
global wavelength semantics is not considered. In order to facilitate
interoperability in a network composed of lambda switch-capable
equipment, this document defines a standard lambda label format, which
is compliant with both [G.694.1](DWDM-grid) and [G.694.2](CWDM-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 received much attention and discussion in its early
revisions. The document has been largely 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
the portions of the extensions are now being used as part of the GMPLS
tool set and are expected to implemented (at least) in those contexts.