Revised Definition of the GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields
draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03

[Ballot comment]
The abstract bit about "updates any document" (and Barry suggestion of "all documents" doesn't change anything) is adding confusion where none is needed. On the one hand, it "Updates" in the sense of specifically updating particular documents such that the "Updated by" banner will appear on the top of the web page with that RFC. On the other hand, it is "updating" the protocol such that all uses of the fields noted in the document, whether in old documents or new ones, is changed. Combining these two uses of "updates" into the same sentence is bad form. Supposedly the reason we mention "Updates" in the Abstract is so that people notice that particular documents have been updated and can do the right thing. Saying that any (or all) documents that use this field are hereby updated isn't saying anything useful here.

[Ballot comment]
A fine document, this.
Just two very minor editorial things, for which no email response is needed:

In the abstract, I think you'll make Stephen (well, and me) happier if you change "any document that uses" to "all documents that use" (also in Section 1).  :-)

In the penultimate paragraph of Section 1, please change "and limit its use" to "and limiting its use" (parallel to "deprecating the use").

[Ballot comment]
Question: Since this document deprecates some values from IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC in http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib, and since IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC was specified in RFC 4802, does this document update RFC 4802?

[Ballot comment]
I was confused by

5. IANA Considerations

  IANA needs to deprecate and redefine the related registry.

Should this be something like "deprecate some existing values in the related registry"?  I'm not understanding why you deprecate a registry and redefine it in the same sentence ...

Obviously this isn't blocking if IANA already thinks they know what to do, but if this needs to be changed to be clear to future readers, please consider changing it!

[Ballot comment]
I was confused by

5. IANA Considerations

  IANA needs to deprecate and redefine the related registry.

Should this be something like "deprecate some existing values in the related registry"? I know I'm not understanding why you deprecate a registry and redefine it in the same sentence ...

Obviously this isn't blocking if IANA already thinks they know what to do, but if this needs to be changed to be clear to future readers, please consider changing it!

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions which must be completed.

First, in the Switching Types sub-registry of the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry located at:

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

IANA is requested to add this draft document to Reference and
deprecate three existing values 2, 3, and 4 as per this document.
IANA will update the sub-registry as follows upon approval of
this document:

Switching Types

        Registration Procedures

      Standards Action

        Reference
                [RFC3471][RFC4328][RFC-to-be]

          Value                  Name                  Reference
            0    Unassigned
            1    Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)      [RFC3471]
            2    Deprecated                            [RFC-to-be]
            3    Deprecated                            [RFC-to-be]
            4    Deprecated                            [RFC-to-be]
          5-29  Unassigned
          30    Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)  [RFC6004]
          31-39  Unassigned
          40    802_1 PBB-TE                          [RFC6060]
          41-50  Unassigned
          51    Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)        [RFC3471]
          52-99  Unassigned
          100  Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471]
        101-124 Unassigned
          125  Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
        126-149 Unassigned
          150  Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)          [RFC3471]
        151-199 Unassigned
          200  Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)            [RFC3471]
        201-255 Unassigned

Second, in the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB registry located at:

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

IANA is requested to update the following entries to this draft document:

OLD:
                psc2(2),      -- Packet-Switch-Capable 2
                psc3(3),      -- Packet-Switch-Capable 3
                psc4(4),      -- Packet-Switch-Capable 4

NEW:
          psc2(2),      -- Deprecated [RFC-to-be]
          psc3(3),      -- Deprecated [RFC-to-be]
          psc4(4),      -- Deprecated [RFC-to-be]

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

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields'
  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 2013-09-17. 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


  GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and
  hierarchical switching within a technology.  GMPLS routing and
  signaling use common values to indicate switching technology type.
  These values are carried in routing in the Switching Capability
  field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the
  values used in these fields are the primary indicators of the
  technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are
  not consistently defined and used across the different
  technologies supported by GMPLS.  This document is intended to
  resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the Switching
  Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning and use
  of the fields.  This document updates any document that uses the
  GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFC
  3471, RFC 4202, RFC 4203, and RFC 5307.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

This document is held pending IETF last call.
There are currently too many Routing Area documents from MPLS and CCAMP in IETF last call and a pause is needed to allow review from interested parties.

AD review
=======

Thanks for this simple document.

I have carried out my review as AD as part of the publication request
process.  The purpose of the review is to catch any issues before the
document goes to IETF last call and IESG evaluation and to improve the
quality of the document.

I have not found any thing substantial, but I have three points I would
like you to look at before we move forward.  All points are open for
discussion.

For the moment I have put the document in "Revised I-D Needed" state.

Thanks for the work.

Adrian

===

Please add a note to the IANA considerations section to request an
update to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib.xhtml

Possibly you should refer to it as IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB rather than through
the URL.

---

I would prefer if the message formats were left out of section 1.1.

You could leave the paragraphs:

  The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling
  protocols.  Values are identified in the IANA GMPLS Signaling
  Parameters Switching Type registry, which is currently located at
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-
      parameters.xml

  For routing, a common information element is defined to carry
  switching type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in
  [RFC4202].  Per [RFC4202], switching type values are carried in a
  Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching
  Capability Descriptor.  This information shares a common formatting
  in both OSPF, as defined by [RFC4203], and in IS-IS, as defined by
  [RFC5307].

  Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common
  format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used
  by [RFC3473].

...and delete the rest without damaging the document.

My concern, as usual, is that copying normative material leads to the
risk of error, and creates problems if material has to be revised. It
is perfectly fine to reference it in nearly every case.

---

Section 2.3...

      These values SHOULD NOT be treated as reserved values, i.e.,
      SHOULD NOT be generated and SHOULD be ignored upon receipt.

But in 3473...

  Nodes MUST verify that the type indicated in the Switching Type
  parameter is supported on the corresponding incoming interface.  If
  the type cannot be supported, the node MUST generate a PathErr
  message with a "Routing problem/Switching Type" indication.

Is it your intention to update that piece of 3473?
If so, you should call it out more clearly.
If not, there is some work needed to reconcile the text.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard. Updates Standards Track documents. 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.
GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and signaling use common values to indicate switching technology type. These values are carried in routing in the Switching Capability field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the values used in these fields are the primary indicators of the technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are not consistently defined and used across the different technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is intended to resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the Switching Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning and use of the fields. This document updates any document that uses the GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFC 3471, RFC 4202, RFC 4203, and RFC 5307.

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. Good support by the WG.

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 document updates the definitions for the Switching Type field to be consistent and deprecates three previously defined switching types. For existing implementations, the primary impact of this document is deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3 and 4. At the time of publication, there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make use of these values so there is no compatibility issues for current routing and signaling implementations.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Area Director.
(2) 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.

This document has been adequately reviewed.
(3) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.
(4) 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.

No.
(5) 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 concerns.
(6) 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.
(7) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR.
(8) 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 supports this document.
(9) 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.)

No.
(10) 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.

No issues.
(11) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.
(12) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.
(13) 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?

No.
(14) 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.
(15) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? 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, the RFCs are listed. Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307.
(16) 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).

IANA considerations section is clearly identified and appears appropriate.
(17) 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.

Not applicable.
(18) 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.

Not applicable.