Skip to main content

RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2007-02-05
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-01-31
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2007-01-31
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2007-01-29
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-01-21
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-01-19
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-01-16
04 Ross Callon I just added a comment to the RFC editor's note based on email from Adrian (an update to the IANA considerations section).
2007-01-15
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-01-15
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-01-15
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-01-05
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation's statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-04.txt
2006-12-20
04 Ross Callon
I have updated the IANA note, based on clarification of the IANA issues provided by Adrian Farrel, and have therefore the document is ready to …
I have updated the IANA note, based on clarification of the IANA issues provided by Adrian Farrel, and have therefore the document is ready to move forward.
2006-12-20
04 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Ross Callon
2006-11-08
04 (System) Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Pasi Eronen.
2006-10-27
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-10-26
2006-10-26
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-10-26
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2006-10-26
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2006-10-26
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2006-10-26
04 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2006-10-26
04 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Bill Fenner
2006-10-25
04 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2006-10-25
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2006-10-25
04 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Evaluation Comments (For the new version of the document)

First, this document extends the set of error codes for Admission Control
Failure defined in …
IANA Evaluation Comments (For the new version of the document)

First, this document extends the set of error codes for Admission Control
Failure defined in RFC 2205. The error codes defined in RFC 2205 are
not documented in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

How would the authors like to document the new Admission Control
Failure codes -- suggested values 4 and 5 in this document?

Second, sections 9.3 and 9.4 suggest the same value (198) for the
SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE and SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE objects. Do
the authors have a preference for registered values for those objects
or may IANA simply take the next value in sequence upon assignment?

Third, correspondence to the IANA from the AD indicates that a
further IANA action has been identified by the author. The author has
not yet contacted IANA to describe that action. Can the author help
IANA identify any further actions not described below?

Fourth, the values for the 16-bit Association Type field are subject
to the IETF Expert Review process. Has an initial Expert been
identified for this registry?

With those questions in mind, IANA understands that three actions
are required upon publication.

First, in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

in the subregistry titled:

"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"

three new objects are to be registered. These are the PROTECTION
object, the PRIMARY PATH ROUTE object and the ASSOCIATION object.

The following registrations will be made:

PROTECTION object: Class-Num = 37

- Type 2: C-Type = tbd

PRIMARY PATH ROUTE object: Class-Num = tbd

- Primary Path Route: C-Type = tbd

ASSOCIATION object: Class-Num = tbd

- IPv4 Association: C-Type = tbd
- IPv6 Association: C-Type = tbd

Association Type (16 bits)
Assignment of values (from 2 to 65535) by IANA are subject to IETF
expert review process i.e. IETF Standards Track RFC Action.

Value Type
----- ----
0 Reserved
1 Recovery (R)

Second, in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

in the subregistry titled:

"Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes"

four Error Code/Subcode values are to be changed. The codes being
changed are:

. Error Code 01 - Admission Control Failure
. Error Code 02 - Policy Control Failure
. Error Code 24 - Routing Problem
. Error Code 25 - Notify Error

Note that the changes to be made for Error Code 01 are the subject of
a clarifying question that the IANA has for the author. For the other
three error codes, the following changes will be made:

For Error Code = 02: "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205])

The following subcode will be added:

Value Description
----- ----------------------------------------
tbd Policy Control failure/Hard Pre-empted

For Error Code = 24: "Routing Problem" (see [RFC3209])

The following subcodes will be added:

Value Description
----- ----------------------------------------
tbd Routing Problem/Unsupported LSP Protection
tbd Routing Problem/PROTECTION object not applicable
tbd Routing Problem/Bad PRIMARY PATH_ROUTE object
tbd Routing Problem/PRIMARY PATH_ROUTE object not applicable

For Error Code = 25: "Notify Error" (see [RFC3209])

The following subcodes will be added:

Value Description
----- ----------------------------------------
tbd Notify Error/LSP Failure
tbd Notify Error/LSP Recovered
tbd Notify Error/LSP Locally Failed


Third, the document requests that the ADMIN_STATUS bits defined in
RFC 3473 as part of the specification for the ADMIN_STATUS object
be registered. Upon approval of the document IANA will create the
following subregistry inside the registry located at:

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

ADMIN_STATUS bits:

Format: 32-bit vector of bits

Position: Description:
[0] Reflect (R) bit defined in [RFC3471]
[1..25] Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC
Action.
[26] Lockout (L) bit is defined in Section 13
[27] Inhibit Alarm Communication (I) bit in [ALARM]
[28] Call (C) bit is defined in [ASON-SIG]
[29] Testing (T) bit is defined in RFC3471
[30] Administratively down (A) bit is defined in
[RFC3471]
[31] Deletion in progress (D) bit is defined in
[RFC3471]
2006-10-24
04 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
s/IPSEC/IPsec/

  When recommending the use of IPsec, please point to section 12
  of [RFC3473].
2006-10-24
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2006-10-24
04 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2006-10-24
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2006-10-23
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2006-10-23
04 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
Nit:

Extended Tunnel ID 
   
        A 32-bit (or 16-byte) identifier used in the SESSION that 
      …
[Ballot comment]
Nit:

Extended Tunnel ID 
   
        A 32-bit (or 16-byte) identifier used in the SESSION that 
        remains constant over the life of the tunnel. Normally set to 
        all zeros. Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a 
        SESSION to the ingress-egress pair MAY place their IPv4 (or 
        IPv6) address here as a globally unique identifier. 

I think it would be better to say 32-bit or 128-bit identifer; this is
more consistent, avoids the "byte is not always octet" gotcha, and seems
closer to the typical usage for v6 address discussions.
2006-10-23
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2006-10-20
04 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by Pasi Eronen:

There is one minor nit (but IANA/RFC editor will take care of it):
sections 9.3 and 9.4 …
[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by Pasi Eronen:

There is one minor nit (but IANA/RFC editor will take care of it):
sections 9.3 and 9.4 suggest the same value (198) forthe
SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE and SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE objects.
2006-10-20
04 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2006-10-19
04 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Ross Callon
2006-10-19
04 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-10-26 by Ross Callon
2006-10-19
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2006-10-19
04 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2006-10-19
04 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2006-10-11
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-04.txt
2006-10-04
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2006-09-27
04 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comment:

IANA has a question about the IANA Actions required upon
publication of this document. Please note the question
below related to …
IANA Last Call Comment:

IANA has a question about the IANA Actions required upon
publication of this document. Please note the question
below related to the registration of ADMIN_STATUS object bits.

As described in the IANA Considerations section of this
document, IANA understands that three actions are required
upon publication.

First, in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

in the subregistry titled:

"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"

three new objects are to be registered. These are the
PROTECTION object, the PRIMARY PATH ROUTE object and
the ASSOCIATION object. IANA will use the instructions
in section 19 of the document to change this subregistry.

Second, in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

in the subregistry titled:

"Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes"

four Error Code/Subcode values are to be changed. The codes
being changed are:

. Error Code 01 - Admission Control Failure
. Error Code 02 - Policy Control Failure
. Error Code 24 - Routing Problem
. Error Code 25 - Notify Error

IANA will use the instructions in section 19 of the
document to change this subregistry.

Third, the document requests that the ADMIN_STATUS bits
defined in RFC 3473 as part of the specification for the
ADMIN_STATUS object be registered. Upon approval of the
document IANA will create the following registry:

ADMIN_STATUS bits:

Format: 32-bit vector of bits

Position: Description:
[0] Reflect (R) bit defined in [RFC3471]
[1..25] Assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC
Action.
[26] Lockout (L) bit is defined in Section 13
[27] Inhibit Alarm Communication (I) bit in [ALARM]
[28] Call (C) bit is defined in [ASON-SIG]
[29] Testing (T) bit is defined in RFC3471
[30] Administratively down (A) bit is defined in
[RFC3471]
[31] Deletion in progress (D) bit is defined in
[RFC3471]

IANA has a question about this new registry: should this
be an entirely new registry, or should it be a subregistry
of the registry located at:

?
2006-09-20
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2006-09-20
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2006-09-20
04 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon
2006-09-20
04 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2006-09-20
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-09-20
04 (System) Last call text was added
2006-09-20
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-08-24
04 Ross Callon State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2006-05-11
04 Bill Fenner State Changes to Publication Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party by Bill Fenner
2006-05-11
04 Bill Fenner Shepherding AD has been changed to Ross Callon from Alex Zinin
2006-05-11
04 Bill Fenner State Change Notice email list have been change to ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org from kireeti@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk
2005-11-17
04 Alex Zinin State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Alex Zinin
2005-11-17
04 Alex Zinin Resolving implementation status with the chairs.
2005-09-06
04 Alex Zinin State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Alex Zinin
2005-05-16
04 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2005-04-04
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt
2004-10-27
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt
2004-05-12
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-01.txt
2004-04-06
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00.txt