Layer Two Tunneling Protocol version 3 - Setup of Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) Pseudowires
draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
2009-07-02
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-07-02
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-07-02
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-07-01
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-06-23
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2009-06-22
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-06-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-06-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-06-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-06-19
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 |
2009-06-18
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-18
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Sorry to raise a late comment... In section 2.1 1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure- agnostic emulation … [Ballot comment] Sorry to raise a late comment... In section 2.1 1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure- agnostic emulation (see [RFC4553]): a) Structure-agnostic E1 emulation - 32 b) Structure-agnostic T1 emulation: i) MUST be set to 24 for the basic mode ii) MUST be set to 25 for the "Octet-aligned T1" mode c) Structure-agnostic E3 emulation - 535 d) Structure-agnostic T3 emulation - 699 I cannot parse this. Does the "MUST" apply to future specifications? I.e., is it an instruction to IANA? Or are you trying to say... For structure-agnostic emulation, this parameter MUST be set to one of the following values. |
2009-06-18
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-06-17
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-06-15
|
07 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-15
|
07 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-15
|
07 | Ralph Droms | This document has been through IESG review and all DISCUSSes have been resolved. A new IETF Last Call was requested because of a downref that … This document has been through IESG review and all DISCUSSes have been resolved. A new IETF Last Call was requested because of a downref that was not explicitly called out in the previous Last Call. No response was received to the new Last Call, so I'm hoping no one will mind if we take 30 seconds to approve the doc during this week's telechat. |
2009-06-11
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-06-10
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters ===== [sub-registry … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters ===== [sub-registry "Control Message Attribute Value Pairs"] NEW: Attribute Type Description Reference --------- ------------------ --------- 99 TDM Pseudowire AVP [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 100 RTP AVP [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] ===== [sub-registry "Result Code AVP (Attribute Type 1) Values" NEW: Defined Result Code values for the CDN message are: 30 - Connection refused because of TDM PW parameters [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] ===== [sub-registry "Result Code AVP (Attribute Type 1) Values" OLD: General Error Codes ... 12 - TSA busy. This identifies an error condition [draft-ietf-l2tpext-tunnel-switching-06.txt] explicitly in the multi-TSA environment. NEW: General Error Codes ... 12 - TSA busy. This identifies an error condition [draft-ietf-l2tpext-tunnel-switching-06.txt] explicitly in the multi-TSA environment. TDM PW Specific error codes, to be used with 30 result code for the CDN message [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 0 - Reserved [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 1 - Bit Rate values disagree. [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 2 - Different trunk types in the case of trunk- specific CESoPSN with CAS [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 3 - Requested payload size too big or too small [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 4 - RTP header cannot be generated. [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 5 - Requested timestamp clock frequency cannot be generated [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] ===== [sub-registry "L2TPv3 Pseudowire Types"] NEW: Value Description Reference ------ ---------------------------------- --------- 0x0011 Structure-agnostic E1 circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 0x0012 Structure-agnostic T1 (DS1) circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 0x0013 Structure-agnostic E3 circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 0x0014 Structure-agnostic T3 (DS3) circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 0x0015 CESoPSN basic mode [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] 0x0017 CESoPSN TDM with CAS [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-07] |
2009-05-29
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2009-05-28
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2009-05-28
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2009-05-28
|
07 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ralph Droms |
2009-05-28
|
07 | Ralph Droms | Last Call was requested by Ralph Droms |
2009-05-28
|
07 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2009-04-22
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] |
2009-04-22
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] (Updated for version -07) RFC 5086 is a normative downref, so it needs to be mentioned during IETF Last Call. |
2009-04-21
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-07.txt |
2009-04-07
|
07 | Ralph Droms | Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Mark Townsley |
2009-02-06
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Sent email to sasha to check on normative ref issue, etc. |
2009-02-06
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Note field has been cleared by Mark Townsley |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cindy Morgan |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: 'Need to look into normative reference issue - and whether this will cause a downref or not.' added by Mark Townsley |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06. Overall, the document looks good, but I have the following concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval … [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06. Overall, the document looks good, but I have the following concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: - Section 4 says the IANA policy for unassigned values is "Expert Review", but does not list the registries IANA is supposed to create. - It seems RFCs 4553 and 5086 should be normative references (they describe e.g. the packet formats used, so they're not just optional background information). RFC 5086 would be a downref. |
2009-01-15
|
07 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Section 1: > signaling packets). However, the order of the CESoPSN Control Word The acronym needs to be expanded. |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 1., paragraph 3: > Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is > described in []. … [Ballot comment] Section 1., paragraph 3: > Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is > described in []. Missing reference. Section 1., paragraph 2: > Setup of structure-aware TDM pseudowires using encapsulations > described in [RFC5087] has been left for further study. In that case, the document title should reflect that. Maybe "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Setup of Structure-Agnostic TDM Pseudowires"? The RFC Editor will also likely ask you to expand the TDM acronym in the title (and many of the other acronyms you're using.) |
2009-01-15
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 1., paragraph 2: > Setup of structure-aware TDM pseudowires using encapsulations > described in [RFC5087] has been left … [Ballot comment] Section 1., paragraph 2: > Setup of structure-aware TDM pseudowires using encapsulations > described in [RFC5087] has been left for further study. In that case, the document title should reflect that. Maybe "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Setup of Structure-Agnostic TDM Pseudowires"? The RFC Editor will also likely ask you to expand the TDM acronym in the title (and many of the other acronyms you're using.) |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] Section 1., paragraph 3: > Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is > described in []. … [Ballot discuss] Section 1., paragraph 3: > Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is > described in []. DISCUSS: Missing reference. (I'm only making this a discuss in case this would be a missing normative reference. We can clear this up on the call, I think.) |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] Section 1 says "Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is described in []" -- this seems to be … [Ballot comment] Section 1 says "Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is described in []" -- this seems to be missing the actual reference. |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06. Overall, the document looks good, but I have the following concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval … [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06. Overall, the document looks good, but I have the following concerns that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: - A quick question about the "Bit Rate" field of TDM PW AVP: other related RFCs (RFC 5287, 4842) use a 32-bit field for bit rate, and a 16-bit field can't express a bit rate larger than ~4 Gbps. Is this enough? - Section 4 says the IANA policy for unassigned values is "Expert Review", but does not list the registries IANA is supposed to create. - It seems RFCs 4553 and 5086 should be normative references (they describe e.g. the packet formats used, so they're not just optional background information). RFC 5086 would be a downref. |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-01-14
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-01-13
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-01-13
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] There is quite a lot of non-expanded acronyms in the initial part of the document. Especially these ones needs expanding and possibly references: … [Ballot comment] There is quite a lot of non-expanded acronyms in the initial part of the document. Especially these ones needs expanding and possibly references: Conventions: In this document we refer to control plane as the packets that contain control information (via AVP) and the mechanism that handles these packets. Section 1: Is RTP (RFC 3550) here? However, the order of the CESoPSN Control Word (CW) and RTP header (if it is used) MUST match between the TDM data and CE signaling packets. Note that there is an acronym overloading here with the word (AVP) as that has one meaning in RTP talk (Audio/video Profile) and another in this document. So RTP AVP in section 2.2 has the potential to be somewhat confusing. |
2009-01-12
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-01-12
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mark Townsley |
2009-01-12
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Ballot has been issued by Mark Townsley |
2009-01-12
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-01-12
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-01-15 by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-28
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-11-24
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: IESG Note: Expert Reviewer Assignment Required for Action 4. Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the … IANA Last Call comments: IESG Note: Expert Reviewer Assignment Required for Action 4. Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "L2TPv3 Pseudowire Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters TBD(0x0011) (SAToP-E1) - Structure-agnostic E1 circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] TBD(0x0012) (SAToP-T1) - Structure-agnostic T1 (DS1) circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] TBD(0x0013) (SAToP-E3) - Structure-agnostic E3 circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] TBD(0x0014) (SAToP-T3) - Structure-agnostic T3 (DS3) circuit [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] TBD(0x0015) (CESoPSN-Basic) - CESoPSN basic mode [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] TBD(0x0017) (CESoPSN-CAS) - CESoPSN TDM with CAS [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "Control Message Attribute Value Pairs" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters Attribute Type Description Reference --------- ------------------ --------- [TBD] TDM Pseudowire AVP [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] [TBD] RTP AVP [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] Action 3: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment in the "Result Code AVP (Attribute Type 1) Values" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters Defined Result Code values for the CDN message are: [TBD] - connection refused because of TDM PW parameters. The error code indicates the problem. [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] Action 4: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following sub-registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters Registry Name: Error codes for use with the TDP PW refusal Registration Procedures: Expert Review Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: 1 - Bit Rate values disagree. [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] 2 - Different trunk types in the case of trunk- [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] specific CESoPSN with CAS 3 - Requested payload size too big or too small. [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] 4 - RTP header cannot be generated. [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] 5 - Requested timestamp clock frequency cannot be [RFC-l2tpext-tdm-06] generated We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2008-11-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-11-14
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows |
2008-11-14
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows |
2008-11-13
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Last Call was requested by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-13
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Last Call was requested by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-13
|
07 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-13
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-11-13
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-11-13
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-11-13
|
07 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-11
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of … (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? Yes. Carlos Pignataro will be the WG Document Shepherd for this document. (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 document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG. Further detailed review was performed by Carlos Pignataro and Ignacio Goyret. Finally, Yaakov Stein reviewed the document as a key non-WG member, active in PWE3, and co-author of most TDM-related RFCs included as References. All review comments have been adequately addressed. There are no concerns about the extent of the reviews. (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, we don't believe there is any need for additional review from other areas. (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. All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed in the revision -06 of the document. To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding issues or concerns. (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? There have been no dissenting voices during review and/or WGLC. (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. (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? Yes. The document checks idnits without any issues found: (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]. The references are properly split into Normative and Informative. All the references are already published RFCs, and there are no downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA Considerations section is consistent with the body of the documents, and has been enhanced for clarity as part of a WGLC comment. All reservation requests are from . There are suggested values only for the "L2TPv3 Pseudowire Types", consistent with the IANA registry. These suggested values are provided for consistency with a corresponding pwe3-parameters number space. (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? There are no sections on this document using any formal language. (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 describes transport of TDM bit-streams over the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3). It describes extensions of L2TPv3 for the setup and maintenance of structure-agnostic and structure-aware TDM Pseudowires, to transport TDM bit-streams over an IP network. 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? There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. 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 l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during review and last call have been addressed. Yaakov Stein performed a very detailed review during WGLC, with the conclusion that "this ID looks ready for publication" at . This document defines an application of L2TPv3 to transport another type of traffic, and is consistent with corresponding PWE3 documents. Carlos Pignataro is the WG shepherd for this document. |
2008-11-11
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2008-10-29
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-06.txt |
2008-06-19
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05.txt |
2007-11-20
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-04.txt |
2007-03-05
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-03.txt |