Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-08-12
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-07-07
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-04-21
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2021-04-14
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2020-06-08
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-06-08
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-06-08
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-06-05
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-06-01
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2020-06-01
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-06-01
|
13 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-06-01
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-06-01
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-06-01
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2020-06-01
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-06-01
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-06-01
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-05-31
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point that were left after that, as well as … [Ballot comment] Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point that were left after that, as well as my comments. |
2020-05-31
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-05-28
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-05-28
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-05-28
|
13 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-13.txt |
2020-05-28
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-28
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Matthew Bocci , Peter Psenak , Stephane Litkowski , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini |
2020-05-28
|
13 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-05-20
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-05-20
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-05-20
|
12 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I had the weirdest sense of deja vu when reviewing this document -- enough that I went back to see if it had … [Ballot comment] I had the weirdest sense of deja vu when reviewing this document -- enough that I went back to see if it had been on a previous telechat -- and then realized that it was the IS-IS version of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc :-) |
2020-05-20
|
12 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] As for other reviewers, many of my comments duplicate those for the OSPF document; I expect that the analogous responses apply and am … [Ballot discuss] As for other reviewers, many of my comments duplicate those for the OSPF document; I expect that the analogous responses apply and am fine if they only appear for one document's review. Here, the question I have about normative language applies to the text in Section 3: When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302], it MUST preserve the ELC signaling for this prefix. The scenario in question is analogous to the OSPF cross-area case: is the router propagating the prefix between ISIS levels required to implement this document; is preservation of the flag value a new requirement from this document vs. a preexisting property; and is this document trying to make normative requirements of devices that don't implement this document? Likewise, the ASBR case for cross-protocol redistribution seems to rather inherently require understanding the semantics of the flags being translated. |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 Should we add a sentence at the end of the last paragraph about how "this document defines a mechanism to signal … [Ballot comment] Section 1 Should we add a sentence at the end of the last paragraph about how "this document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using IS-IS"? In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be side note(?): I don't know that SR-MPLS is so popular so as to be privileged as the only example given for LSP usage. If we instead talked about using IGPs to signal labels, this selection would seem less surprising to me. Section 3 unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs. If a router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD set the ELC for every local host prefix it advertises in IS-IS. Do we want to say anything about (not) advertising the ELC for other prefixes? Section 4 I agree with Roman's comment about code 2 vs TBD2. ERLD in the range between 0 to 255. The scope of the advertisement depends on the application. If a router has multiple interfaces with Just to check: w.r.t. "scope", both this document and the OSPF one only define usage of this MSD type at the scope of a single node, right? (I don't see a particular reason to preclude using it at a different scope.) Section 6 - Bit 3 in the Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV registry has been assigned to the ELC Flag. IANA is asked to Is there an "IS-IS" in the name of this registry? Section 7 Should we say anything about considerations for redistributing ELC/ERLD information at the ASBR with respect to exposing "internal information" to external parties? This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node capabilities using IS-IS and BGP-LS. As such, the security considerations as described in [RFC7981], [RFC7752], [RFC7794], [RFC8491], [RFC8662], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and RFC 8662's security considerations have a pretty hard dependency on RFC 6790's security considerations; it might be worth mentioning 6790 directly in this list as well. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this document. Could we also have a brief note that the normal IS-IS authentication mechanisms serve to protect the ELC/ERLD information? Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or redistribution may lead to black-holing of the traffic on the egress node. This is what happens when the E flag should not be set but is erroneously set. Should we also say what happens if we should set the E flag but erroneously clear it (e.g., that poor or no load-balancing may occur)? Section 8 I do see the note in the shepherd writeup about the sixth author (thank you!); if we're already breaking through the 5-author limit, did we consider making those who "should be considered as co-authors" listed as co-authors? Section 10.1 Should we reference RFC 7981 from Section 4 as well? Right now we seem to only use it for the security considerations, which is not necessarily enough to qualify it as a normative reference. |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Two editorial nits: ** Section 3. Editorial. s/ When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302],/When a router propagates … [Ballot comment] Two editorial nits: ** Section 3. Editorial. s/ When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302],/When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels [RFC5302],/ ** Section 4. Figure 2. The text says that “A MSD-Type Code 2 has been assigned by IANA”, but Figure 2 says “MSD-Type=TBD2”. |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, Same comment as for equivalent OSPF draft. Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement? If so, is … [Ballot comment] Hi, Same comment as for equivalent OSPF draft. Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement? If so, is that already being worked or, or planned work for the WG? Regards, Rob |
2020-05-19
|
12 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-05-17
|
12 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "(e.g., SR-MPLS [...]," appears to lack a closing parenthesis. |
2020-05-17
|
12 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-05-17
|
12 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-05-11
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. Like other ADs, I wonder why the IS-IS … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. Like other ADs, I wonder why the IS-IS and OSPF are separate documents. Please find below one NIT. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == NIT == -- section 4 -- The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." even if we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-) |
2020-05-11
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] What Barry said. Also, I presume your AD has approved going over the usual limit of five authors. |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Just a few editorial nits: — Section 1 — In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would … [Ballot comment] Just a few editorial nits: — Section 1 — In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma. This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to Nit: this needs a comma after the citation. — Section 3 — originator. Similarly in a multi-domain network, the identity of the Nit: “Similarly” needs a comma after it. When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302], it Nit: remove the open parenthesis. an Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) is outside of the scope Nit: the abbreviation “ASBR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s no reason to include it. — Section 4 — A new MSD-type [RFC8491], called ERLD-MSD is defined to advertise the Nit: 8491 capitalizes the “T” in “MSD-Type”. Nit: there needs to be a comma after “ERLD-MSD”. |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-05-21 |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-05-05
|
12 | Dhruv Dhody | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list. |
2020-05-05
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-05-04
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-05-04
|
12 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV registry on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/ the existing, early registration for: Bit #: 3 Name: E-bit will be made permanent with its name changed to ELC Flag and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Bit #: 3 Name: ELC Flag (E-flag) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the IGP MSD-Types registry on the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/ the existing, early registration for: Value: 3 Name: Entropy Label Readable Depth (ERLD) will be made permanent with its name changed to ERLD-MSD and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Value: 3 Name: ERLD-MSD Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions Operator 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-05-04
|
12 | Scott Bradner | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. Sent review to list. |
2020-04-30
|
12 | Rich Salz | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Rich Salz. Sent review to list. |
2020-04-28
|
12 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12.txt |
2020-04-28
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-28
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sriganesh Kini , Stephane Litkowski , Clarence Filsfils , Peter Psenak , Matthew Bocci , Xiaohu Xu |
2020-04-28
|
12 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-24
|
11 | Mohit Sethi | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Mohit Sethi. Sent review to list. |
2020-04-23
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Mohit Sethi |
2020-04-23
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Mohit Sethi |
2020-04-23
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rich Salz |
2020-04-23
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rich Salz |
2020-04-22
|
11 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2020-04-22
|
11 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2020-04-21
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2020-04-21
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-05-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-05-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , lsr@ietf.org, acee@cisco.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to consider the following document: - 'Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS' 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-05-05. 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 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load- balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load- balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using IS-IS. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2311/ |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2020-04-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-03-24
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | The authors have addressed all my comments for this document. I am now waiting for draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc to catch up so we can progress both of … The authors have addressed all my comments for this document. I am now waiting for draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc to catch up so we can progress both of them together through IETF LC and beyond. |
2020-03-24
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-03-24
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-03-24
|
11 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11.txt |
2020-03-24
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-24
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stephane Litkowski , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Peter Psenak , Matthew Bocci , Sriganesh Kini |
2020-03-24
|
11 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-29
|
10 | Acee Lindem | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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? A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This document specifies extensions to IS-IS Prefix attribute advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing. Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476. Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs is specified. Working Group Summary: The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However, a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth author was added. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready for publication. There have also been several side meetings. Personnel: Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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 each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list. The document shepherd fully believes that the document is ready for publication. (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. No. (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. None. (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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes - there is one IPR. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc (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? There is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that this document can progress. (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.) No. (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. Nits are all resolved other than some of date references. I will ask the authors to update. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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? No. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently. (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. No. (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 considerations section is clear and early allocations have been made for the requested code points. https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#prefix-attribute-flags https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types (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. No new registries are required. (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. Not applicable. |
2020-02-28
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | ==== AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10 ==== https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/kmiiSQippuhZ3VbPr-S88Ga3Oyw/ |
2020-02-28
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2020-02-28
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | This document now replaces draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld instead of draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc |
2020-02-26
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-02-26
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> |
2019-10-23
|
10 | Acee Lindem | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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? A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This document specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing. Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476. Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs is specified. Working Group Summary: The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However, a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth author was added. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready for publication. There have also been several side meetings Personnel: Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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 each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. Additionally, the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency with other OSPF RFCs. The document shepherd fully believes that the document is ready for publication. (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. No. (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. None. (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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure. (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? There is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that this document can progress. (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.) No. (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. Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the RFC 8174 reference. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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? No. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently. (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. No. (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 considerations section is clear and early allocations have been made for the requested code points. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4 (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. No new registries are required. (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. Not applicable. |
2019-10-23
|
10 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2019-10-23
|
10 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2019-10-23
|
10 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-10-23
|
10 | Acee Lindem | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-10-23
|
10 | Acee Lindem | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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? A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This document specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing. Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476. Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs is specified. Working Group Summary: The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However, a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth author was added. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready for publication. There have also been several side meetings Personnel: Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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 each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. Additionally, the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency with other OSPF RFCs. The document shepherd fully believes that the document is ready for publication. (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. No. (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. None. (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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure. (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? There is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that this document can progress. (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.) No. (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. Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the RFC 8174 reference. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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? No. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently. (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. No. (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 considerations section is clear and early allocations have been made for the requested code points. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4 (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. No new registries are required. (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. Not applicable. |
2019-10-21
|
10 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10.txt |
2019-10-21
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-21
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu |
2019-10-21
|
10 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-04
|
09 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-09.txt |
2019-10-04
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-04
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski |
2019-10-04
|
09 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-12
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list. |
2019-09-03
|
08 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> |
2019-09-03
|
08 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem |
2019-09-03
|
08 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08.txt |
2019-09-03
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-03
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Stephane Litkowski |
2019-09-03
|
08 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-30
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2019-08-30
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2019-08-30
|
07 | Acee Lindem | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2019-05-14
|
07 | Stephane Litkowski | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-07.txt |
2019-05-14
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-14
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski |
2019-05-14
|
07 | Stephane Litkowski | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-28
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-09-24
|
06 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-06.txt |
2018-09-24
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-24
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Siva Sivabalan , Stephane Litkowski |
2018-09-24
|
06 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-31
|
05 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05.txt |
2018-07-31
|
05 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2018-07-29
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xiaohu Xu , Siva Sivabalan , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski |
2018-07-29
|
05 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-29
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Siva Sivabalan , Stephane Litkowski |
2018-07-29
|
05 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-24
|
04 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-04.txt |
2018-07-24
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-24
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Sriganesh Kini , Xiaohu Xu , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski |
2018-07-24
|
04 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-16
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-02-25
|
03 | Christian Hopps | Notification list changed to none |
2018-02-25
|
03 | Christian Hopps | Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from IS-IS for IP Internets (ISIS) |
2018-01-03
|
03 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-03.txt |
2018-01-03
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-03
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: isis-chairs@ietf.org, Siva Sivabalan , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski |
2018-01-03
|
03 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-17
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-10-14
|
02 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-02.txt |
2016-10-14
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-14
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Siva Sivabalan" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Sriganesh Kini" , "Xiaohu Xu" , "Stephane Litkowski" |
2016-10-14
|
01 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2015-11-10
|
01 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-01.txt |
2015-11-04
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-11-04
|
00 | Christian Hopps | This document now replaces draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc instead of None |
2015-05-20
|
00 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-00.txt |