GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-12

[Ballot comment]
Just two minor, non-blocking things related to the use of "REQUIRED" as a 2119 key word along with the modifier "not":

-- Section 6.2 --

    - In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, TPN field MUST be set to 0. Bit
      Map information is not REQUIRED and MUST NOT be included, so
      Length field MUST be set to 0 as well. 

The "REQUIRED" there should not be a 2119 key word, and should be made lower case.  Otherwise, there's a conflict with the MUST NOT.  And see below.

-- Section 9 --

    o A node supporting both sets of procedures (i.e., [RFC4328] and
      this document) is not REQUIRED to signal an LSP using both
      procedures, i.e., to act as a signaling version translator.

Similar to the above.  The problem is that "REQUIRED" means "MUST", but "not REQUIRED" does not mean "MUST NOT".  It's best to avoid "not REQUIRED" with a 2119 meaning.  The easiest fix is just to make "required" lower case (or another way to say "is not required" is "need not").  And I can't really think of a good way to say what you want to say in 2119-ese, nor why you'd have to.

[Ballot discuss]
Holding a Discuss for the resolution of IANA's questions:

Additional IANA actions from this version:

- In the IANAGmplsGeneralizedPidTC section of the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB
registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib

the following entries will be updated:

OLD:
g709ODUj(47),
g709ESCON(56),

NEW:
g709ODU25g(47),
g709SBCONESCON(56),

QUESTION: Should the names be updated as per this document?
If yes, please confirm the above new/proposed names.
Please update the next version to include the new revised names
shown in the TC MIB table.


- Also in the IANAGmplsGeneralizedPidTC section of the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB
registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib

twelve new G-PIDs, values 59 to 70, will be added to the section. 

QUESTION: What are the names to be added the TC MIB table? 

- Regarding the new sub-registry "OTN Signal Type":

QUESTION: Should the term "Unassigned" (as defined in RFC5226) be used,
rather than "Reserved" in the range 23-255 of the new registry "OTN
Signal Type"?

23~255  Reserved (for future use)            [this document]

And, please confirm if value 255 is available for future allocation.

NOTE: Please update the URLs in the IANA Considerations section:

FROM:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-
  mib.xhtml.

TO:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib

This will ensure the URL will always work and point to the most current
version/extension.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.

n tracker.
IANA Actions - YES

NOTE: This revised review is based on version 12 of the drafted
document.  IANA has questions about some of the IANA actions
requested in the IANA Considerations section.

Additional IANA actions from this version:

- In the IANAGmplsGeneralizedPidTC section of the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB
registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib

the following entries will be updated:

OLD:
g709ODUj(47),
g709ESCON(56),

NEW:
g709ODU25g(47),
g709SBCONESCON(56),

QUESTION: Should the names be updated as per this document?
If yes, please confirm the above new/proposed names.
Please update the next version to include the new revised names
shown in the TC MIB table.


- Also in the IANAGmplsGeneralizedPidTC section of the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB
registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib

twelve new G-PIDs, values 59 to 70, will be added to the section. 

QUESTION: What are the names to be added the TC MIB table? 

- Regarding the new sub-registry "OTN Signal Type":

QUESTION: Should the term "Unassigned" (as defined in RFC5226) be used,
rather than "Reserved" in the range 23-255 of the new registry "OTN
Signal Type"?

23~255  Reserved (for future use)            [this document]

And, please confirm if value 255 is available for future allocation.

NOTE: Please update the URLs in the IANA Considerations section:

FROM:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-
  mib.xhtml.

TO:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib

This will ensure the URL will always work and point to the most current
version/extension.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.

Thank you,

Pearl Liang
ICANN/IANA


On Tue Sep 17 09:40:49 2013, iesg-secretary@ietf.org wrote:
> Evaluation for  can be
> found at
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-
>    g709v3/
>
> Last call to expire on: 2013-09-02 00:00
>
>
>        Please return the full line with your position.
>
>                      Yes  No-Objection  Discuss  Abstain
> Adrian Farrel        [ X ]    [  ]      [  ]    [  ]
>
>
> "Yes" or "No-Objection" positions from 2/3 of non-recused ADs,
> with no "Discuss" positions, are needed for approval.
>
> DISCUSSES AND COMMENTS
> ===========
> ?
> ---- following is a DRAFT of message to be sent AFTER approval ---
> From: The IESG
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: RFC Editor ,
>    ccamp mailing list ,
>    ccamp chair
> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
>    (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical
>    Transport Networks Control' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-
>    gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt)
>
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
>    Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks
>    Control'
>  (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt) as Proposed
>    Standard
>
> This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement
>    Plane
> Working Group.
>
> The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.
>
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-
>    g709v3/
>
>
>
>
> Technical Summary
>
>    This document extends GMPLS RSVP-TE to support the control of
>    Optical Transport Networks (OTN) specified in ITU-T Recommendation
>    G.709 as published in 2012. It provides an update to the OTU/ODU
>    related mechanisms defined in RFC4328.  This document is one of
>    four informational and standards track documents going through the
>    publication process as a set.
>
> Working Group Summary
>
>    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
>
>    The base GMPLS RSVP-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
>
>    Lou Berger (lberger@labn.net) is the Document Shepherd.
>    Adrian Farrel (Adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the Responsible AD
>
> RFC Editor Note
>
>  (Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)
>
> IRTF Note
>
>  (Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)
>
> IESG Note
>
>  (Insert IESG Note here or remove section)
>
> IANA Note
>
>  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)
>
>
>
>

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
  Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks
  Control'
  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 2013-09-02. 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


  ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-2012] has introduced new Optical
  channel Data Unit (ODU) containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex)
  and enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility.

  This document updates the ODU-related portions of RFC4328 to
  to provide the extensions to the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
  Switching (GMPLS) signaling to control the full set of OTN features
  including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex.







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

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


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

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1836/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1790/

AD review
========

Hi,

Here is my usual AD review of this document.  You have approached a
pretty icky-complex topic well, and produced a readable (if technical)
document. Well done!

I have only a few nits as comments and propose to enter them as IETF
last-call comments as the document moves forward. (They care copied
below for your information).

The next thing you should see is the IETF last call announcement.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

Please fix the two lines that are too long (see idnits)

---

Please expand "OTN" on first use in the main text.
Please expand "TS" on its first use.

---

6.2

  The ingress node of an LSP MAY include Label ERO (Explicit Route
  Object) to indicate the label in each hops along the path.

Missing "subobject".

---

6.2.1

  When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an
  GENERALIZED_LABEL object

s/an/a/

---

Please consider and note what updates to GMPLS management tools are
needed.

Are there any changes to the Alarms that might arise? We have a document
for that.

Are there any changes to the way OAM is controlled? We have a document
for that.

Should the new G-PIDs show in the TC MIB managed by IANA at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib.xhtml
This should happen automgically when the feeding registries are updated
but it is probably best to add a specific request for IANA.

Will other MIB work be needed (in the future) to make it possible to
read new information (labels, tspecs) from network devices?

---

Please fix so that you have three sections:

Authors' Addresses (only those people on the front page)
Contributors (other people who made significant text contributions to
the document)
Acknowledgements (other people who helped with the work)

---

[OTN-OSPF] should be a normative reference for its use to define the
value of the switching type used in signaling.

---

> (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 RSVP-TE signaling 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 RSVP-TE to support the control of
Optical Transport Networks (OTN) specified in ITU-T Recommendation
G.709 as published in 2012. It provides an update to the OTU/ODU
related mechanisms defined in 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 RSVP-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-signaling-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.

There is at least one point that some contributors have repeatedly
re-raised.  They have said they can live with the documented
solution, but clearly they would prefer different specifics. 

> (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. There are 2 instances of too long lines that will
need to be fixed the next time the document is updated.

> (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, 4328 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.

One new registry is defined by this document.  The document
states:

  Upon approval of this document, IANA will define an "OTN Signal Type"
  subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
  (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters":
  ...
  New values are to be assigned via Standards Action as defined in
  [RFC5226].

> (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.

No automated checks performed.

Authors,
Please add a '0x' prefix to any hexadecimal value in the draft.  In
other words:
  s/=2/=0x2
  s/ 20/ 0x20
  s/ 21/ 0x21

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14832.html

IPR statement received:

zhangfatai at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13961.html
sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.it -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13971.html
daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13945.html
kpithewan at infinera.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13967.html
pietro_vittorio.grandi at alcatel-lucent.it --
diego.caviglia at ericsson.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13948.html
rrao at infinera.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13951.html
jdrake at juniper.net -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13938.html

IPR statement missing:

zhangguoying at mail.ritt.com.cn --
yi.lin at huawei.com --
xuyunbin at mail.ritt.com.cn --
IBryskin at advaoptical.com --

Waiting on IPR statements from:

zhangfatai at huawei.com, zhangguoying at mail.ritt.com.cn, sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.it, daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com, kpithewan at infinera.com, yi.lin at huawei.com, xuyunbin at mail.ritt.com.cn, pietro_vittorio.grandi at alcatel-lucent.it, diego.caviglia at ericsson.com, rrao at infinera.com, jdrake at juniper.net, IBryskin at advaoptical.com



See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13937.html: