Skip to main content

OSPFv3-Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery
draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2009-03-17
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-03-16
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-03-16
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-03-16
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-03-16
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-03-16
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-03-13
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-03-13
03 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2009-03-13
03 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-03-07
03 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-03-01
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2009-01-13
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Pasi Eronen
2009-01-13
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot comment]
2009-01-13
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Pasi Eronen
2009-01-12
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-01-12
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-03.txt
2008-12-18
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-18
03 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-12-18
03 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-12-18
03 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-18
03 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
I support Pasi's discuss.  In particular, when more than one L1VPN Info TLV is present,
it is unclear to me how to determine …
[Ballot comment]
I support Pasi's discuss.  In particular, when more than one L1VPN Info TLV is present,
it is unclear to me how to determine if a TE Link TLV is present.
2008-12-18
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-12-18
03 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
The document contains no manageability or operational impact information. I would have expected at a minimum that it would mention the impact on …
[Ballot discuss]
The document contains no manageability or operational impact information. I would have expected at a minimum that it would mention the impact on network traffic (if any), coexistence and/or migration to version 2, how are the network devices configured ('management directives' are mentioned at one place, but this is too little), how is the discovery information exposed, and if any existing management data base (e.g. MIB module) needs to be created or extended to cover this functonality. If this information or part of it is available in some other document please indicate and provide that document as a reference.
2008-12-18
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-12-18
03 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-12-18
03 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.2, "is either the Router Address TLV or Local interface IP
address link sub-TLV" probably should be "is either the Router IPv6 …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.2, "is either the Router Address TLV or Local interface IP
address link sub-TLV" probably should be "is either the Router IPv6
Address TLV or Local Interface IPv6 Address sub-TLV" to match the
terminology in ospfv3-traffic-13?
2008-12-18
03 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot discuss]
I have question about TLV numbering. The L1VPN INFO TLV (RFC 5252
Section 2.2) used type "1", but apparently there's no IANA …
[Ballot discuss]
I have question about TLV numbering. The L1VPN INFO TLV (RFC 5252
Section 2.2) used type "1", but apparently there's no IANA registry
for these numbers. The L1VPN IPv6 INFO TLV (this document) uses type
"2".  Both the Link TLV in RFC 3630 and the Link TLV in ospfv3-traffic
(either of which can be present here) also use type "2".

Should we renumber the L1VPN IPv6 INFO TLV to "3" and the
ospfv3-traffic Link TLV to "4", or somehow clarify how these are parsed?
2008-12-18
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-17
03 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-12-15
03 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for David Ward
2008-12-15
03 David Ward Ballot has been issued by David Ward
2008-12-15
03 David Ward Created "Approve" ballot
2008-11-25
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Charles Clancy.
2008-11-18
03 David Ward Telechat date was changed to 2008-12-18 from 2008-12-04 by David Ward
2008-11-16
03 David Ward State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by David Ward
2008-11-11
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Charles Clancy
2008-11-11
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Charles Clancy
2008-11-10
03 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-11-04
03 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

IANA Has Questions:

- This document uses (Section 2.1) and defines (Section 2.2) a new
L1VPN INFO TLV but does not …
IANA Last Call comments:

IANA Has Questions:

- This document uses (Section 2.1) and defines (Section 2.2) a new
L1VPN INFO TLV but does not register it anywhere. This is tied
into the L1VPN Info TLV defined in Section 2.2 of RFC5252. Maybe
a registry of L1VPN Info TLVs should be created?

Note to author: Value 13 is already assigned to Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA.

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters

LSA Function Code LS Type Description Reference
----------------- ---------------------------------- ---------
[TBA] OSPFv3 L1VPN LSA
[RFC-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-02]
2008-10-27
03 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2008-10-27
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2008-10-27
03 David Ward Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by David Ward
2008-10-27
03 David Ward Last Call was requested by David Ward
2008-10-27
03 David Ward State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by David Ward
2008-10-27
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-10-27
03 (System) Last call text was added
2008-10-27
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-10-06
03 David Ward State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by David Ward
2008-08-28
03 Cindy Morgan
Intended status : Experimental

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the …
Intended status : Experimental

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Adrian Farrel the document shepherd. The co-chairs have reviewed the
document. They think that the document is ready to be forwarded to the
IESG for publication.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?

The draft is very similar to RFC 5252 (OSPFv2 auto-discovery). That document
received considerable discussion in the WG. This work has not attracted much
interest within L1VPN.

However, the document was introduced to the OSPF working group and received
detailed review from Acee Lindem (OSPF WG co-chair).

L1VPN WG last call was held jointly on the OSPF WG mailing list.

> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
> e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
> AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
> or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
> has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
> event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
> that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> this issue.

No concerns.

There was no filed IPR disclosure related to this document.

> (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
> others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
> agree with it?

Not a lot of interest in the work from the working group, but no objections.

The motivation for this document is a specific request from the IESG.

> (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
> separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
> should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
> entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats. No discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See
> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The Document has been checked.

> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? Are there normative references to documents that
> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
> state? If such normative references exist, what is the
> strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
> so, list these downward references to support the Area
> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References split.
No downrefs.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document? If the document specifies protocol
> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
> registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
> the document creates a new registry, does it define the
> proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
> procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
> document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
> can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

A simple IANA section makes a single request for IANA action. The
format is clear.

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
> an automated checker?

No such formal language is used.

> (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
> "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
> announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.

This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3
based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery
mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN
auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the
support of IPv6.

> 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 document was explicitly requested during IESG review of RFC 5252. That
document had good consensus from the L1VPN working group, and defines
extensions to OSPFv2 for L1VPN auto-discovery.

This document did not have much support from the working group, but had no
opposition.

The only point of debate was whether this should be Standards Track or
Experimental. In the absence of any implementation, and with no indication
of any implementation plans, it was decided that Experimental was most
appropriate.

> 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?

As above: no implementations known, no plans known.

The document received a thorough review from Acee Lindem as co-chair of the
OSPF working group.
2008-08-28
03 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-08-08
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-02.txt
2008-06-25
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-01.txt
2008-06-11
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt