Skip to main content

GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-17

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-11-16
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-11-01
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-10-31
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-10-14
17 (System) Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org to (None)
2015-09-24
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-09-23
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-09-22
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-09-17
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-09-17
17 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-09-17
17 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-09-15
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-09-14
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-09-14
17 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2015-09-14
17 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-09-14
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2015-09-14
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2015-08-28
17 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-17.txt
2015-08-27
16 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]
I'd like to see clearer descriptions on particularly the error-handling around multiple TLVs and sub-TLVs.
I see a few points of ambiguity - …
[Ballot comment]
I'd like to see clearer descriptions on particularly the error-handling around multiple TLVs and sub-TLVs.
I see a few points of ambiguity - as described below.  I think these should be straightforward to clarify but
interoperability could be affected if this isn't done.  Thanks!

In Sec 2, it says "Only one Optical Node Property TLV shall be advertised in each LSA." What is the error-handling if multiple of this TLV are seen?
Is that a SHALL or a "at most one... MUST be advertised"?  I'd expect normative language.

In Sec 2, it says "  Among the sub-TLVs defined above, the Resource Block Pool State sub-
  TLV and Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability are
  dynamic in nature while the rest are static. As such, they can be
  separated out from the rest and be advertised with multiple TE LSAs
  per OSPF router, as described in [RFC3630] and [RFC5250]."
So - one can advertise multiple TE LSAs - each with at most one  Optical Node Property TLV
and at most one of these sub-TLVs?  If the same sub-TLV appears in different TE LSAs, how
are they merged or is a particular one preferred and the rest ignored?  I see the text in the
previous paragraph of "If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received,
  only the first one of the same type is processed and the rest are
  ignored upon receipt." but what does the "first one" mean?  Is that decided based on
a particular identifier?

In Sec 3.1, "The format of the SCSI MUST be as depicted in the following figure:" implies that
both the Available Label Sub-TLV and the Shared Backup Label Sub-TLV must be included and
in the specified order.  Please clarify (and use separate diagrams) details about how many times
each sub-TLV can appear, if ordering matters, and how to handle conflicts or duplicates.

End of Sec 4: "In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are
  malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore..."  First, please be explicit in
what behavior MUST be done.  Is this just for malformed sub-TLVs?  Is it safe to assume that sub-TLVs
further on in the TLV (or following TLVs) can be properly parsed?  Second, please add in some words
about the expected load of logs.

In Sec 2, it's useful to use TBA1, TBA2, etc. instead of reusing TBA - adds to clarity of the text and makes it easier to make sure replacement is done
properly when the values are assigned.

In Sec 3.1, it says "  The technology specific part of the WSON ISCD may include a variable
  number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs.  Two types of
  Bandwidth sub-TLV are defined (TBA by IANA):"  If this document is creating the
bandwidth sub-tlv space, then this draft simply assigns initial values - so no need for the "TBA
by IANA".

In Sec 4, "In a typical node configuration, the optical node property TLV will not exceed the IP MTU."
Can you please describe the assumptions about a "typical node configuration"?  In a few years, these
assumptions are likely to have changed.
2015-08-27
16 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alia Atlas has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2015-08-26
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-08-26
16 Young Lee IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-08-26
16 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-16.txt
2015-08-06
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-08-06
15 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Nevil Brownlee.
2015-08-06
15 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
For the sake of recording the ongoing discussion between the Nevil Brownlee, as OPS-DIR reviewer, and the author (YOUNG)

Hi all:

I have …
[Ballot comment]
For the sake of recording the ongoing discussion between the Nevil Brownlee, as OPS-DIR reviewer, and the author (YOUNG)

Hi all:

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
operational area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft's Expiry Date is November 2014.  It's generally clear
in what it says, and it's certainly useful.  However, I feel that
there are a few aspects that could  be made a little clearer for
implementors.


Abstract:
  "This document provides Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
    (GMPLS) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing enhancements to
    support signal compatibility constraints associated with
    Wavelength- Switched Optical network (WSON) elements. These routing
    enhancements are applicable in common optical or hybrid
    electro-optical networks where not all of the optical signals in
    the network are compatible with all network elements participating
    in the network.

    This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
    or hybrid electro optical systems such as
    Optical-Electronic-Optical (OEO) switches, regenerators, and
    wavelength converters since such systems can be limited to
    processing only certain types of WSON signals."

The Introduction mentions WSON-Encode and GEN-OSPF; these are Normative
references, presumably to Drafts that will eventually be Standards
Track RFCs?  This comment also applies to GEN-Encode in section 3.

YOUNG>> Yes. Actually they have already become RFCs. Need to update the reference.
WSON-Encode is now RFC 7581 and GEN-OSPF RFC 7580.


Section 2 defines values for sub-TLVs of the Optical Node Property
TLV.  Their values are all shown as TBA; using something like TBA1,
TBA2, .. TBA5 would make it clearer to IANA that they're different
values.

YOUNG>> Good point. Will work with IANA on this.

Also in section 2, you have sub-sections for the last four sub-TLV
values, but not the first (Resource Block Information).  Why not?

YOUNG>> Actually you are correct. Will add a sub-section for the Resource Block Information with the following text:


  As defined in [RFC7446], the Resource Block Information
    field is used to represent resource signal
  constraints and processing capabilities of a node.


Again in section 2, you say that the sub-TLVs may appear in any order.
You don't say whether all of them are required - is that what's
intended, or may any subset be specified?

YOUNG>> They are optional TLVs. How about:

OLD
It is comprised of a set of sub-TLVs.

NEW
It is comprised of a set of optional sub-TLVs.

END



In section 3.1 you use the acronym SCSI to mean 'Switching Capability
Specific Information,' which I found confusing.  It would help to
add (SCSI) as part of that sub-section's title.

YOUNG>> Sure. It will be like:

OLD

3.1. Switching Capability Specific Information

New

3.1. Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI)
END



In section 4 you say "In a rare case where the TLV exceed the IP MTU,
IP fragmentation/reassembly can be used, which is an acceptable
method."  That's probably true for IPv4, but what about IPv6, where
fragmentation must be done by the source node?

YOUNG>> I am not IPv6 expert. You are probably right on this. How about adding this:

NEW

For IPv6, a node may use the IPv6 Fragment header to fragment the packet at the source and have it
      reassembled at the destination(s).

END

There are also a few tiny typos:
  s2.2  s/may have a limited/may have limited/
  s2.4  s/Resources blocks/Resource blocks/  (?)
  s4    s/that exceeds the/that exceed the/
  s6.1  s/New IANA registry/A new IANA registry/
  s6.1.1  s/new IANA registry/a new IANA registry/
  s6.2  s/Refenrence/Reference/  (also, its value should be [This.ID])


YOUNG>> Will correct in the next revision. Thanks.
2015-08-06
15 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2015-08-06
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Simon Josefsson.
2015-08-06
15 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-08-05
15 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-08-05
15 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-08-05
15 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-08-05
15 Alia Atlas
[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to see clearer descriptions on particularly the error-handling around multiple TLVs and sub-TLVs.
I see a few points of ambiguity - …
[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to see clearer descriptions on particularly the error-handling around multiple TLVs and sub-TLVs.
I see a few points of ambiguity - as described below.  I think these should be straightforward to clarify but
interoperability could be affected if this isn't done.  Thanks!

In Sec 2, it says "Only one Optical Node Property TLV shall be advertised in each LSA." What is the error-handling if multiple of this TLV are seen?
Is that a SHALL or a "at most one... MUST be advertised"?  I'd expect normative language.

In Sec 2, it says "  Among the sub-TLVs defined above, the Resource Block Pool State sub-
  TLV and Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability are
  dynamic in nature while the rest are static. As such, they can be
  separated out from the rest and be advertised with multiple TE LSAs
  per OSPF router, as described in [RFC3630] and [RFC5250]."
So - one can advertise multiple TE LSAs - each with at most one  Optical Node Property TLV
and at most one of these sub-TLVs?  If the same sub-TLV appears in different TE LSAs, how
are they merged or is a particular one preferred and the rest ignored?  I see the text in the
previous paragraph of "If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received,
  only the first one of the same type is processed and the rest are
  ignored upon receipt." but what does the "first one" mean?  Is that decided based on
a particular identifier?

In Sec 3.1, "The format of the SCSI MUST be as depicted in the following figure:" implies that
both the Available Label Sub-TLV and the Shared Backup Label Sub-TLV must be included and
in the specified order.  Please clarify (and use separate diagrams) details about how many times
each sub-TLV can appear, if ordering matters, and how to handle conflicts or duplicates.

End of Sec 4: "In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are
  malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore..."  First, please be explicit in
what behavior MUST be done.  Is this just for malformed sub-TLVs?  Is it safe to assume that sub-TLVs
further on in the TLV (or following TLVs) can be properly parsed?  Second, please add in some words
about the expected load of logs.
2015-08-05
15 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]


In Sec 2, it's useful to use TBA1, TBA2, etc. instead of reusing TBA - adds to clarity of the text and makes …
[Ballot comment]


In Sec 2, it's useful to use TBA1, TBA2, etc. instead of reusing TBA - adds to clarity of the text and makes it easier to make sure replacement is done
properly when the values are assigned.

In Sec 3.1, it says "  The technology specific part of the WSON ISCD may include a variable
  number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs.  Two types of
  Bandwidth sub-TLV are defined (TBA by IANA):"  If this document is creating the
bandwidth sub-tlv space, then this draft simply assigns initial values - so no need for the "TBA
by IANA".

In Sec 4, "In a typical node configuration, the optical node property TLV will not exceed the IP MTU."
Can you please describe the assumptions about a "typical node configuration"?  In a few years, these
assumptions are likely to have changed.
2015-08-05
15 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-08-05
15 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

I have two (non-blocking) questions...

I always get worried when the security considerations
says "nothing to see here, move on, but if you …
[Ballot comment]

I have two (non-blocking) questions...

I always get worried when the security considerations
says "nothing to see here, move on, but if you must, do
feel free to look at ." That is sometimes a
signal that nobody bothered to think about security, but
only thought about how to try keep the security ADs
quiet:-) Can you re-assure me that in this case, you did
think about security?

Is there any interesting new way in which abuse of these
TLVs (either via direct insertion or else by causing
them to be sort-of controlled by sending other traffic)
can be used to control how traffic flows in a network so
that the attacker can better control or predict through
which nodes (or at which wavelengths) some traffic of
interest (to the attacker) will flow? I'd say that the
answer is probably not, but did you consider it?
2015-08-05
15 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-08-04
15 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-08-03
15 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Section 5 (security considerations) says: "This document does not introduce any further security issues other
  than those discussed in [RFC3630], …
[Ballot comment]
Section 5 (security considerations) says: "This document does not introduce any further security issues other
  than those discussed in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]."

While I don’t doubt the statement is true, it would be helpful to show the thought behind it. In this case, the draft adds new data elements to the OSPF TE LSA. Please consider adding a very short discussion on how the security implications of those elements is similar to or different from the previously existing data elements.

Nits:

Please expand TE and LSA on first mention.

idnits thinks the reference to [G.694.1] is not cited in the body. Is the reference needed?
2015-08-03
15 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-08-03
15 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-08-03
15 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-08-03
15 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nevil Brownlee
2015-08-03
15 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nevil Brownlee
2015-08-02
15 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-08-02
15 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-08-01
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-08-01
15 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15.  Please see below and report any inaccuracies as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15.  Please see below and report any inaccuracies as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments:

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

First, in the Top Level Types in TE LSAs registry under the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs heading at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/

a new type will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Top Level Types: Optical Node Property
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors suggest the value 6 for this new type.

Second, IANA will create a sub-registry called Types of sub-TLVs of Optical Node Property TLV (Value TBA) Registry. TBA is to be replaced with the value chosen in step 1 above. The new sub0registry is to be located in the OSPF Traffic Engineering TLVs registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/

This sub-registry is to be maintained via Standards Action as defined in RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Value Length Sub-TLV Type Reference
--------------+-----------+------------------------------+-------------
0 Reserved
1 variable Resource Block Information [ RFC-to-be ]
2 variable Resource Accessibility [ RFC-to-be ]
3 variable Resource Wavelength
Constraints [ RFC-to-be ]
4 variable Resource Block Pool State [ RFC-to-be ]
5 variable Resource Block Shared
Access Wavelength Availability [ RFC-to-be ]
6-65535 Unassigned

Third, in the Switching Types registry under the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters heading at

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

a new switching type will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: WSON-LSC capable (WSON-LSC)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors suggest a value of 151 for this switching type.

Fourth, IANA will create a sub-registry called the Types for sub-TLVs of WSON-LSC SCSI (Switch Capability-Specific Information) Registry. This new sub-registry will be located in the OSPF Traffic Engineering TLVs registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/

The registry is to be maintained via Standards Action as defined in RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Value Sub-TLV Reference
-----------+----------------------------+-------------
0 Reserved
1 Available Labels [ RFC-to-be ]
2 Shared Backup Labels [ RFC-to-be ]
3-65535 Unassigned

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. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.
2015-07-31
15 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-07-29
15 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 correctly say that they're creating new registries, but Sections 6.1 and 6.2 incorrectly say that, when they appear to …
[Ballot comment]
Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 correctly say that they're creating new registries, but Sections 6.1 and 6.2 incorrectly say that, when they appear to be only registering TLVs in existing registries.  IANA hasn't reviewed this yet, I see, so I don't know how confused they might be, but it would be good to fix this (also note the URL correction in 6.1):

OLD (6.1)
  New IANA registry will be created for the Optical Node Property TLV
  to allocate a new TLV Type and its Value for this Top Level Node TLV
  in the "Top Level Types in TE LSAs" section of the "OSPF Traffic
  Engineering TLVs" registry located at
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ospf-traffic-
  eng-tlvs.xhtml.

  The following TLV is allocated in this specification.
NEW
  IANA is asked to register a new TLV for "Optical Node Property".
  The new TLV will be registered in the "Top Level Types in TE LSAs"
  registry in "OSPF Traffic Engineering TLVs", located at
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs, as follows:
END

OLD (6.2)
  A new IANA registry will be created to make the assignment of a new
  value for the existing "Switching Types" TLV of the "GMPLS Signaling
  Parameters" registry located at
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters as follows:
NEW
  IANA is asked to register a new TLV for "WSON-LSC capable".
  The new TLV will be registered in the "Switching Types" registry in
  "GMPLS Signaling Parameters", located at
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters, as follows:
END
2015-07-29
15 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-07-25
15 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-06
2015-07-25
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2015-07-25
15 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-07-25
15 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2015-07-23
15 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2015-07-23
15 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2015-07-23
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Simon Josefsson
2015-07-23
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Simon Josefsson
2015-07-19
15 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-07-19
15 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility
  for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks'
  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 2015-08-02. 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


  This document provides Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
  (GMPLS) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing enhancements to
  support signal compatibility constraints associated with Wavelength-
  Switched Optical network (WSON) elements. These routing enhancements
  are applicable in common optical or hybrid electro-optical networks
  where not all of the optical signals in the network are compatible
  with all network elements participating in the network.

  This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
  or hybrid electro optical systems such as Optical-Electronic-Optical
  (OEO) switches, regenerators, and wavelength converters since such
  systems can be limited to processing only certain types of WSON
  signals.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf/ballot/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1696/



2015-07-19
15 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-07-19
15 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2015-07-19
15 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-07-19
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2015-07-19
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2015-07-19
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2015-07-19
15 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2015-03-25
15 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2015-02-23
15 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger
Write up for draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes …
Write up for draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Standards Track

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

The document defines OSPF related formats and behaviors.

> 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 provides Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
  (GMPLS) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing enhancements to
  support signal compatibility constraints associated with Wavelength-
  Switched Optical network (WSON) elements. These routing enhancements
  are applicable in common optical or hybrid electro-optical networks
  where not all of the optical signals in the network are compatible
  with all network elements participating in the network.

  This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
  or hybrid electro optical systems such as Optical-Electronic-Optical
  (OEO) switches, regenerators, and wavelength converters since such
  systems can be limited to processing only certain types of WSON
  signals.

> 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?

This topic been discussed in the WG for a very long time, perhaps 6
years.  Support for the work has been tepid, but there are multiple
sets of contributors who would like to see the work result in proposed
standards.

> 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 routing protocol has been implemented.  The extensions
defined in this document are compatible with earlier implementations.
Multiple implementors have stated their intent to implement, or have
stated that they have already implemented, the mechanisms defined in
this document.

> 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 an extended WG last calls.
The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. This
document is part of a set of documents on WSON and final publication --
and at the AD's discretion, IETF LC -- should occur as a set.
The documents set includes:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
    draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
    draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
    draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te
    draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf
    draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. 

> (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 WGs chairs were consulted, and
one provided comments.

> (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.

yes, IPR has been disclosed for this document.  A related discussion
took place on the info document, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13081.html and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13139.html

No suggestion of changing the WG document solution resulted from the
discussion. 

> (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? 

Good among interested parties. No objections from others.

> (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.

> (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.

None.

> (16) 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.

No.

> (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 IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd.  Two new
allocations are requested in this document in registries that are
properly identified.

> (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.

Two new registries are requested.  Both require 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.

N/A.

2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger State Change Notice email list changed to ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@tools.ietf.org
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger Changed document writeup
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger Changed document writeup
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2014-09-30
15 Lou Berger Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2014-05-22
15 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15.txt
2014-02-13
14 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-14.txt
2014-02-12
13 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-13.txt
2013-10-31
12 Lou Berger Waiting for LC comments to be addressed.
2013-10-31
12 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2013-10-30
12 Daniele Ceccarelli WG last call comments:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15436.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15429.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15426.html
2013-10-30
12 Daniele Ceccarelli IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from In WG Last Call
2013-10-30
12 Daniele Ceccarelli Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2013-10-28
12 Lou Berger Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger
2013-10-15
12 Daniele Ceccarelli http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15347.html
2013-10-15
12 Daniele Ceccarelli IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2013-10-15
12 Daniele Ceccarelli Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared.
2013-09-30
12 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-12.txt
2013-09-16
11 Daniele Ceccarelli Prepration for WG last call. IPR declariations.

Young Lee (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14990.html)
Greg Bernstein (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15255.html)
2013-09-16
11 Daniele Ceccarelli IETF WG state changed to WG Document from WG Document
2013-07-19
11 Daniele Ceccarelli Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set.
2013-02-06
11 Daniele Ceccarelli Prepration for WG last call. IPR declariations.

Young Lee (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14990.html)
Greg Bernstein (...)
2013-02-06
11 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-11.txt
2012-08-08
10 Greg Bernstein New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-10.txt
2012-07-16
09 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-09.txt
2012-04-24
08 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-08.txt
2012-02-28
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-07
2011-10-30
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-07.txt
2011-09-15
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-06.txt
2011-09-08
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-05.txt
2011-03-08
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-04.txt
2011-02-28
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-03.txt
2010-09-02
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-02.txt
2010-03-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-01.txt
2009-12-08
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-00.txt