Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for GMPLS Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-13

[Ballot comment]
with resecept to stephens comment, it seems unlikely that noodling with the security considerations text will have any effect at all on the outcome. I can live with it as written

[Ballot comment]

The security considerations section here seems like a
cut and paste from rfc 3630, which is referred to from
here. But 3630 does not actually seem to "suggest
mechanisms" so the reference seems wrong and when in
any case did "suggestion" become a useful form of
specification?  This reads as if the minimum cursory
amount of text that might satisfy was added. Having
said that, I don't have time to analyse this
sufficient to turn this into a discuss-worthy point,
so I'm committing the same sin with this cursory
comment.

[Ballot comment]
There is continued discussion of the modifications from the Gen-ART review. I'm not sure if the IANA change has been implemented. Please check the mail thread!

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 1 --

  Routing information for Optical Channel Layer (OCh) (i.e.,
  wavelength) is beyond the scope of this document.

Is "i.e." correct here?  Is wavelength the only factor?

-- Section 2 --

  For example, if a multiplexing or example a multiplexing hierarchy
  like the following one is considered:

This doesn't make sense.  Is there a copy/paste error in there?

-- Section 4 --
In contrast with most usage, we don't usually expand "IEEE".  I actually found it quite odd to see it done.  "IEEE floating point format" should be fine.

-- Section 4.1.1 --

  The values of the fields shown in figure 4 are explained in section
  4.1.3.

That should be "figure 3".

-- Section 9.1 --
You should have a note to the RFC Editor to replace the "TBA by IANA" in Section 4.

-- Section 9.2 --
You should have a note to the RFC Editor to replace the "TBA by IANA" in Section 4.1.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-09.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are two actions it must complete.

First, in the Switching Types registry in the GMPLS Signaling Parameters page at

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

a single new switching type will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: OTN-TDM capable (OTN-TDM)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 110 for this new switching type.

Second, IANA will create a new registry, the "Types for sub-TLVs of OTN-TDM SCSI (Switch Capability Specific Information)," to be located in the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs page at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/

The new sub-registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in this new sub-registry:

Value Sub-TLV Reference
--------- -------------------------- -------------
0 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Unreserved Bandwidth for [ RFC-to-be ]
fixed containers
2 Unreserved/MAX Bandwidth for [ RFC-to-be ]
flexible containers
3-65535 Unassigned

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, these two actions are the only ones required.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
  Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks'
  as 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 2013-10-16. 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.

Abstract

  This document describes Open Shortest Path First - Traffic
  Engineering (OSPF-TE) routing protocol extensions to support
  Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) control of Optical Transport Networks (OTN)
  specified in ITU-T Recommendation G.709 as published in 2012.  It
  extends mechanisms defined in RFC4203.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1835/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1621/

Hi authors and working group,

I have done my usual AD review on receiving a publication request for
this document to smooth out any issues before IETF last call and IESG
evaluation.

As you'll see below, I have a few small issues that I would like to work
through.  The result will either be some email discussion where you
convince me that no change is needed, or a revised version of the
document.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

I have a thread with the authors about why they need to list nine
authors on the front page. The RFC Editor has a norm of no more than
five unless there is a specific reason.

---

This document does not update 4203. Extending mechanisms is not an
update, and this document doesn't really even extend the mechanisms; it
simply defines a new ISCD and describes how it is used.

---

Section 2 has a reference to [swcaps-update]. I suspect this is meant to
be draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update.  You need to add this to the
informative references section.

---

Section 2 is wrongly named! The section does describe the requirements,
but there is actually nothing in the section that is specific to OSPF
and certainly no description of OSPF extensions.

I found the material useful, but wondered why it was in this document
and not in the information model document since it perfectly describes
the information model that needs to be applied.  I am not requiring you
to do anything about this, but I would ask you think hard about whether
this text should be moved to the other document and simply pointed to
from here.

---

Section 3 is a fine and concise section. But it seems to me that this
material also belongs in the information model document, not here.
Again, I am not requiring you to make a change here, but please think
about whether the section could be moved and replaced with a pointer.

---

Section 4

OLD
  - Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) [as defined in RFC4328]
NEW
  - Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) as defined in [RFC4328]
END

---

The description of the table in section 4 caused me some grief. You
have...

  The bandwidth unit is in bytes per second and the encoding MUST
  be in Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
  floating point format.  The discrete values for various ODUs is shown
  in the table below.

Could you please do two things:

1. Remind the reader that there are 1000 bits in a kbit according to
  normal practices in telecommunications. (Probably add a note to the
  quoted text.)
2. Clarify that the third column shows a floating point value. (Update
  the column heading.)


However, I do also note that the use of bandwidth in section 4.1.3 are
described as (for example)...

      This field
      MUST be set to the bandwidth, in bits/s in IEEE floating point
      format, available at the indicated Signal Type for a particular
      priority level.

So you also need to sort that out.

---

Section 4.
In the table, could you fix up the notation of ODU3 to use 0x not 0X

---

I wonder whether the text and figure for the example in Figure 10 needs
its own section.

---

I think there are some issues (or possibly some unspoken points) with
section 6.

1. Suppose you have an old implementation. How will it treat these new
  advertisements?
  For this you are just stating facts. There is nothing you can define
  because you cannot influence how old implementations work. But you
  can say how they will behave according to existing specs.

2. If a new implementation only supports this spec and not RFC 4328 how
  will it handle an RFC 4328 advertisement?
  This is something you can and must describe.

3. For a new implementation that supports this spec and RFC 4328, I don't
  understand what you have written.

    When nodes support both advertisement
    methods, implementations MUST support the configuration of which
    advertisement method is followed.

  I *think* this says that
  - a node MUST NOT use more than one advertisement method to advertise
    the resources on a single OTN link
  It also appears to say that
  - a node MUST NOT use more than one advertisement method to advertise
    across *all* of its advertisements

  You go on to say...

    This enables
    nodes following each method to identify similar supporting nodes
    and compute paths using only the appropriate nodes.

  ...which seems to imply that it is not possible to compute a path
  end-to-end across nodes using a mix of the old and new advertisement
  types. Is that *really* what you want to say?

---

It might be helpful to break section 8 into subsections.

---

Section 8

For the new Switching Type you need to remind IANA to make the update
in the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib

---

Section 8


  Upon approval of this document, IANA will create and maintain a new
  registry, the "Types for sub-TLVs of OTN-TDM SCSI (Switch Capability
  Specific Information)" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First
  (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry, see http://www.iana.org/
  assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs.xml, with the
  TLV types as follows:


      This document defines new TLV types as follows:

  Value      Sub-TLV                      Reference
  ---------  --------------------------    ----------
  0          Reserved                    [This.I-D]

1. What does "Reserved" mean? Does it mean "Reserved and not to be
  allocated"? Does it mean "Reserved but a future RFC may assign it"?
  Does it mean "Unassigned and available for normal allocation"?
  You need to decide and make it clear for IANA

2. IANA will need to know what the range of available values is.
  3 up to what limit?

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

This document extends OSPF routing protocol functionality.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

> (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.

This document extends GMPLS OSPF-TE to support the control of
Optical Transport Networks (OTN) specified in ITU-T Recommendation
G.709 as published in 2012.  In particular, it extends mechanisms
defined in RFC4203.  A previous version of G.709 was supported by
GMPLS signaling per RFC4328.  This document is one of four
informational and standards track documents going through the
publication process as a set.

> 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?

There were many points of discussion, some more "intense" than
others.  At this point there does not appear to be any notable
discontent with the documented solution.

> 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 base GMPLS OSPF-TE mechanisms are implemented and deployed.
Implementation status of the extensions defined in this document
has not been publicly disclosed, but several implementations are
expected.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel

> (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 document as it has
progressed through the CCAMP WG, including as part of two WG last
calls.  The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No.  As part of the 2nd WG LC, both the OSPF and PCE WGs were
notified.

> (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.

As part of the 2nd WG LC, both the OSPF and PCE WGs were
notified.

> (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.

No specific 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.

Yes, via messages to/on the CCAMP WG list.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

IPR has been disclosed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3

The WG has been polled for known IPR and the contributors have
responded appropriately. No comments were made by WG participants
in response.

> (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? 

Strong among interested parties. No objections from others.

> (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.)

Not to my knowledge.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

The document passes tools idnits with some warnings that can be
safely ignored.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

> (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?

None.

> (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.

No.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs?

Yes, RFC4203 is updated by this document.

> 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.

Yes

> (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 section was fully reviewed and updates were incorporated to
address Shepherd's review.

> (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 single new registry requires Standards Action (by OSPF, or
CCAMP WG produced RFCs).

> (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.

N/A

IPR statement received:

daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13944.html
diego.caviglia at ericsson.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13947.html
zhangfatai at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13962.html
danli at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13965.html
sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13972.html
rrao at infinera.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13950.html
kpithewan at infinera.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13968.html
jdrake at juniper.net -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13940.html

IPR statement missing:

pietro_vittorio.grandi at alcatel-lucent.com --

Waiting on IPR statements from:

daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com, diego.caviglia at ericsson.com, zhangfatai at huawei.com, danli at huawei.com, sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.com, pietro_vittorio.grandi at alcatel-lucent.com, rrao at infinera.com, kpithewan at infinera.com, jdrake at juniper.net

See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13936.html