Procedures for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for doing this spec. It is very well written and technically
solid. I would have otherwise voted Yes but that would have required
a bit too much crosschecking and reading other RFCs than I had time
for today.

[Ballot discuss]
I am generally Ok with this document and I was about to ballot No Objection, but I found something I would like to quickly discuss:


3.1.2. Unnumbered Links with Action Identification

    TLVs

        Zero, one, or more TLVs may be present. Each TLV is encoded as
        follows:

          Type (16 bits)

            The identifier of the TLV. Two type values are defined in
            this document:

            1  IGP Instance Identifier TLV
            2  Component Link Identifier TLV

Does this need to use an IANA registry?

          Length (16 bits)

            Indicates the total length of the TLV in octets. I.e.,
            4 + the length of the value field in octets. A value field
            whose length is not a multiple of four MUST be zero-padded
            so that the TLV is four-octet aligned.

          Value

            The data for the TLV padded as described above.


3.3.1. Unnumbered Component Link Identification

  If the component link is to be unnumbered, the Unnumbered Component
  Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted as described in
  Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 2, and the Value field

So this seems to be pointing to the Type value quoted above, but ...

  has the following content:

3.3.2. IPv4 Numbered Component Link Identification

  If the component link is identified with an IPv4 address, the IPv4
  Numbered Component Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted
  as described in Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 3, and

... this is using a type not listed in 3.1.2.
What am I missing?

(Same comment about 3.3.3)

  the Value field has the following content:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three
IANA actions that need to be completed.

First, in the Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types subregistry of
the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry at

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

in class number 193 (LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID), the following class types
are to be added:

C-Type Meaning Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------
2 IPv4 interface identifier with target [RFC-to-be]
3 IPv6 interface identifier with target [RFC-to-be]
4 Unnumbered interface with target [RFC-to-be]

Second, in the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Parameters registry located at:

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

a new subregistry is to be created:

Name of the registry: Hierarchy Actions
Reference: [ RFC-to-be]
Registration Procedures: IETF Standards Action RFC

Initial values for this new subregistry are:

Registry:
Bit Number Hex Value Name Reference
---------- ----------- ----------------------- ---------
0-2 Unassigned
3 0x10 Hierarchy/stitching (H) [RFC-to-be]
4 0x08 Bundle (B) [RFC-to-be]
5 0x04 Routing adjacency(R) [RFC-to-be]
6 0x02 TE link (T) [RFC-to-be]
7 0x01 Private (P) [RFC-to-be]

Third, in the Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes
subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters
registry located at:

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

a new Error Code is to be added as follows:

Error Code Meaning

tbd LSP Hierarchy Issue [RFC-to-be]

The authors request that the value "34" be used for tbd. IANA believes
that value has already been assigned.

In addition, for the tbd Error code, the following globally-defined
Error Value sub-codes will be registered:

1 = Link advertisement not supported [RFC-to-be]
2 = Link advertisement not allowed by policy [RFC-to-be]
3 = TE link creation not supported [RFC-to-be]
4 = TE link creation not allowed by policy [RFC-to-be]
5 = Routing adjacency creation not supported [RFC-to-be]
6 = Routing adjacency creation not allowed by policy [RFC-to-be]
7 = Bundle creation not supported [RFC-to-be]
8 = Bundle creation not allowed by policy [RFC-to-be]
9 = Hierarchical LSP not supported [RFC-to-be]
10 = LSP stitching not supported [RFC-to-be]
11 = Link address type or family not supported [RFC-to-be]
12 = IGP instance unknown [RFC-to-be]
13 = IGP instance advertisement not allowed by policy [RFC-to-be]
14 = Component link identifier not valid [RFC-to-be]
15 = Unsupported component link identifier address [RFC-to-be]
family
16 = Component link identifier missing [RFC-to-be]

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

Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-07.txt

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?

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 discussion and review.


(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.

No concerns. 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?

WG consensus is solid.

(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.

(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?

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 [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?

The IANA section looks good.

(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.

Label Switched Paths (LSPs) set up in Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks can be used to form links
to carry traffic in those networks or in other (client) networks.

Protocol mechanisms already exist to facilitate the establishment of
such LSPs and to bundle TE links to reduce the load on routing
protocols. This document defines extensions to those mechanisms to
support identifying the use to which such LSPs are to be put and to
enable the TE link endpoints to be assigned addresses or unnumbered
identifiers during the signaling process.

The mechanisms defined in this document deprecates the technique
for the signaling of LSPs that are to be used as numbered TE links
described in RFC 4206.

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?

No. As this document deprecates a technique used in RFC4206, an
informal survey was done and it was established that no
implementations exist using that technique.

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, but it is expected that several
vendors plan to implement.