Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2008-01-15
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2008-01-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-01-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-01-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-01-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-01-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-01-14
|
05 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2008-01-13
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2008-01-13
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-01-13
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-05.txt |
2007-12-21
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-12-20 |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] Section 5, Paragraph 4 first sentence currently reads: The second strategy for PSC and non-PSC networks is to migrate from the … [Ballot comment] Section 5, Paragraph 4 first sentence currently reads: The second strategy for PSC and non-PSC networks is to migrate from the PSC network to GMPLS, first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network. I suggest: The second strategy is to migrate from the PSC network to GMPLS, first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network. |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss discuss. Personally, I find the phased migration model terrifying. Selective introduction of features seems like a great opportunity to … [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss discuss. Personally, I find the phased migration model terrifying. Selective introduction of features seems like a great opportunity to perform a DoS attack on your own network. Are there features of GMPLS that assume the existence of other features for consistent operation? It seems like you are developing your own interim internal "standards" that need to be self-consistent. Is this really a good thing for the IETF to recommend? |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2007-12-20
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2007-12-19
|
05 | David Ward | [Ballot comment] There is no mention of using PCEs for this functionality. |
2007-12-19
|
05 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2007-12-19
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2007-12-18
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Evaluation comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2007-12-18
|
05 | Ross Callon | Note that an IPR statement has been made wrt this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/760/ was claimed against draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00 (now -04). This was brought to the attention of … Note that an IPR statement has been made wrt this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/760/ was claimed against draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00 (now -04). This was brought to the attention of the working group and no-one flinched. |
2007-12-18
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2007-12-16
|
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
2007-12-16
|
05 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
2007-12-16
|
05 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2007-12-16
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-12-16
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-12-16
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-12-12
|
05 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon |
2007-12-12
|
05 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-12-20 by Ross Callon |
2007-10-16
|
05 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
2007-09-25
|
05 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document … PROTO Write-up > (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? Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. He 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? This is a fairly old document. In its early days it had substantial review and discussion. More recently the level of input has tailed off probably because the draft was largely complete. Although the I-D has had no explicit review from the MPLS working group most of the people concerned with the migration of MPLS-TE to GMPLS are participants in CCAMP. > (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. The document is sound. The document filename is easily confused with draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts that is also going to the IESG for publication at this time. But the document titles are sufficiently different to avoid confusion. > (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? The working group has indicated is understanding and support for the requirements expressed in this I-D. The solution models described have not drawn any unfavorable comments except as noted in the I-D. > (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. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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 [RFC2434]. 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? This is an Informational I-D. A null IANA section is present. > (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 such sections. > (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. The migration from Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is the process of evolving an MPLS-TE control plane to a GMPLS control plane. An appropriate migration strategy will be selected based on various factors including the service provider's network deployment plan, customer demand, and operational policy. This document presents several migration models and strategies for migrating from MPLS-TE to GMPLS. In the course of migration, MPLS-TE and GMPLS devices, or networks, may coexist which may require interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS protocols. Aspects of the interworking required are discussed as it will influence the choice of a migration strategy. This framework document provides a migration toolkit to aid the operator in selection of an appropriate strategy. This framework document also lists a set of solutions that may aid in interworking, and highlights a set of potential issues. > 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? Nothing of note. > 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? This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications. The authors list demonstrates considerable interest from providers in preparing for migration from MPLS-TE to GMPLS. Early versions of this document were founded on significant discussions with Kireeti Kompella resulting in considerable simplification of the ideas put forward. The final versions of this document received detailed review from Adrian Farrel resulting in many small changes. |
2007-09-25
|
05 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2007-09-24
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-04.txt |
2007-08-09
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-03.txt |
2007-02-07
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-02.txt |
2006-10-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-01.txt |
2006-10-25
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Tellabs Statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00 | |
2006-04-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-00.txt |