Skip to main content

Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2008-11-25
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-11-17
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-11-17
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-11-14
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-11-14
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-11-10
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-11-10
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-11-10
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-11-10
03 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-11-06
03 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2008-10-24
03 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-10-23
2008-10-23
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2008-10-23
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2008-10-23
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-10-23
03 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-10-23
03 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-10-23
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-10-23
03 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-10-23
03 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-10-23
03 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
The only change in the spec is here:

  Length

  Indicates the total length of the TLV, i.e., 4 + the length …
[Ballot discuss]
The only change in the spec is here:

  Length

  Indicates the total length of the TLV, 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.

This is a good change, to align with the subobject format rules.
However, the new text is no longer explicit about whether padding
is or is not included in the length field.

Can this be clarified?
2008-10-23
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-10-22
03 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-10-22
03 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-10-22
03 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss - discuss.  I would normally have expected new IANA assignments
since the document changes the semantics of the length …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss - discuss.  I would normally have expected new IANA assignments
since the document changes the semantics of the length field.  Implementations of
4420 and 4420bis will recognize the same Type number but will not interoperate
based on differing interpretations.  I recognize that 4420 was considered buggy, but
are we confident that all implementers have already moved to the 4420bis semantics?
2008-10-22
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-10-22
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-10-21
03 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-10-19
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-10-16
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Scott Kelly.
2008-10-10
03 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2008-10-10
03 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2008-10-10
03 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2008-10-10
03 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-10-23 by Ross Callon
2008-10-10
03 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2008-10-10
03 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

Action #1 (Section 11.5)

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in the
"Class Names, Class …
IANA Last Call comments:

Action #1 (Section 11.5)

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in the
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

OLD:
Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
5 RRO Attributes [RFC4420]

NEW:
Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
5 RRO Attributes [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]


Action #2 (Section 11.1)
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in the
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

OLD:
Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
67 LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES [RFC4420]
Class Types or C-types:
1 LSP Required Attributes TLVs [RFC4420]

NEW:
Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
67 LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]
Class Types or C-types:
1 LSP Required Attributes TLVs [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]


Action #3 (Section 11.1)
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in the
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

OLD:
Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
197 LSP_ATTRIBUTES [RFC4420]
Class Types or C-types:
1 LSP Attributes TLVs [RFC4420]

NEW:
Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
197 LSP_ATTRIBUTES [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]
Class Types or C-types:
1 LSP Attributes TLVs [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]


Action #4 (Section 11.4)
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in the
"Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
sub-registry

OLD:
Error Code Meaning
29 Unknown Attributes TLV [RFC4420]
30 Unknown Attributes Bit [RFC4420]

NEW:
Error Code Meaning
29 Unknown Attributes TLV [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]
30 Unknown Attributes Bit [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]


Action #5 (Section 11.2)
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in the
"Attributes TLV Space" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters

OLD:
Type Name Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Reference
---- --------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------
------- ---------
1 Attributes Flags Yes Yes [RFC4420]

NEW:
Type Name Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Reference
---- --------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------
------- ---------
1 Attributes Flags Yes Yes [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4420]


Action #6 (Section 11.3)
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in the
"Attribute Flags" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters

OLD:
Bit No Name Attribute Flags Path Attribute Flags Resv RRO Reference
------ --------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ---
---------
0 End-to-end re-routing Yes No No [RFC4920]
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No [RFC4920]
2 Segment-based re-routing Yes No No [RFC4920]

NEW:
Bit No Name Attribute Flags Path Attribute Flags Resv RRO Reference
------ --------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ---
---------
0 End-to-end re-routing Yes No No [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-
03][RFC4920]
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03][RFC4920]
2 Segment-based re-routing Yes No No [RFC-ccamp-rfc4420bis-
03][RFC4920]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2008-10-10
03 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-09-26
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2008-09-26
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2008-09-26
03 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2008-09-26
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2008-09-25
03 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon
2008-09-25
03 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2008-09-25
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-09-25
03 (System) Last call text was added
2008-09-25
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-09-08
03 Ross Callon State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2008-05-29
03 Cindy Morgan
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt

Intended status : Standards Track

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed …
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt

Intended status : Standards Track

> (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?

I-D had good review and discussion in the CCAMP working
group doing its development. The discrepency in RFC 4420 addressed by
this document was identified by a forum during interoperability testing and communicated to 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.

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?

Consensus is good.

> (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 downward references.

> (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?

The IANA allocations made for RFC 4420 apply to this document.

No new IANA allocations are needed. In Section 11 "IANA Considerations",
it is requested for IANA to update RFC 4420 registry entries to
reference this document.

> (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 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.

Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be
established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused
bits.

This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the
signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis.

The object mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable to
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) LSPs and to GMPLS non-PSC LSPs.

This document replaces and obsoletes the previous version of this work
published as RFC 4420.

The only change is in the encoding of the Type-Length-Variable (TLV)
data structures.

> 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?

WG had good consensus with no disputes or disagreements.

> 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 a substantial number of implementations. Interoperability
testing by a forum identified the discrepency in RFC 4420 which is addressed by this document.
2008-05-29
03 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-05-27
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt
2008-03-15
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt
2008-03-13
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-01.txt
2008-03-10
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-00.txt