Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges
draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-12-18
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-11-25
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-11-12
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2013-10-21
|
06 | Ali Sajassi | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-10-21
|
06 | Ali Sajassi | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-06.txt |
2013-10-15
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-10-14
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2013-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-10-14
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2013-10-14
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-10-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-10-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-10-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-10-14
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-10-10
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2013-10-10
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Matt Lepinski. |
2013-10-10
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-10-10
|
05 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-10-10
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] What Adrian said. |
2013-10-10
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-10-09
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-10-09
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Given my read of the document and the author's response to points raised in Barry's ballot, this appears to be a case of … [Ballot comment] Given my read of the document and the author's response to points raised in Barry's ballot, this appears to be a case of publishing for publishing's sake. I can't support the publication of this document, unless it was being published as Historic. |
2013-10-09
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-10-08
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Further to Adrian's point: 1. The document shepherd tells us that two or three people besides the authors have indicated support for this, … [Ballot comment] Further to Adrian's point: 1. The document shepherd tells us that two or three people besides the authors have indicated support for this, and perhaps only two have actually read it. 2. An IPR statement was filed in 2008 on the individual-submission version of the document. Two of the authors are inventors on the two patents mentioned in the statement. The working group adopted the document in early 2010. And, according to the shepherd writeup, the working group was first informed of the IPR statement in July 2013 (presumably as part of WGLC)? I don't see how we can really say there's working group consensus on this document. And it really looks to me like it's authors getting their patents into working group technology on the basis that no one cares enough to object. (I realise that my cynical-mode statement may be unfair to well-meaning authors, and that I have no real basis for it. Please take it with many grains of salt.) I'm not going to block this document on these points, but I can't in good conscience support it either. Hence, my ABSTAIN position. |
2013-10-08
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba |
2013-10-08
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Further to Adrian's point: 1. The document shepherd tells us that two or three people besides the authors have indicated support for this, … [Ballot comment] Further to Adrian's point: 1. The document shepherd tells us that two or three people besides the authors have indicated support for this, and perhaps only two have actually read it. 2. An IPR statement was filed in 2008 on the individual-submission version of the document. Two of the authors are inventors on the two patents mentioned in the statement. The working group adopted the document in early 2010. And, according to the shepherd writeup, the working group was first informed of the IPR statement in July 2013 (presumably as part of WGLC)? I don't see how we can really say there's working group consensus on this document. And it really looks to me like it's authors getting their patents into working group technology on the basis that no one cares enough to object. I'm not going to block this document on these points, but I can't in good conscience support it either. Hence, my ABSTAIN position. |
2013-10-08
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-10-08
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I have some observations... --- From the Shepherd Write-up... > (9) How … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I have some observations... --- From the Shepherd Write-up... > (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? > > When the WG meeting at IETF74 was asked for consensus on the draft > about 6 people were in favour (the same number as had read the draft). > 5 people (including 3 non-authors) indicated support for the draft on > the mailing list poll and none objected. In March 2009 6 people were in favour of an I-D with 4 authors? And this merits being a working group document on the strength of that? --- I think a number of acronyms need to be exapnded. Compare with http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt --- I find Section 10 hard to believe. Compared with VPLS/H-VPLS scenarios, this document is considering interoperating two network types. Surely in this case, the security of the whole is only as good as the weakest security of any of the component networks. Doesn't that mean that at the very least you need a reference to PBB security mechanisms? Are there no vectors for attacking the IP/MPLS network via the PBB network? |
2013-10-08
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-10-07
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-10-07
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-10-07
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-09-30
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-09-30
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-09-30
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-10-10 |
2013-09-30
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
2013-09-30
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-09-30
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-09-30
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-09-24
|
05 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-09-24) |
2013-09-17
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-09-17
|
05 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-09-05
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2013-09-05
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2013-09-05
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Matt Lepinski |
2013-09-05
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Matt Lepinski |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document: - 'VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-09-24. 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 The scalability of H-VPLS with Ethernet access networks can be improved by incorporating Provider Backbone Bridge functionality in the VPLS access. Provider Backbone Bridging has been standardized as IEEE 802.1ah-2008, and aims to improve the scalability of MAC addresses and service instances in Provider Ethernet networks. This document describes different interoperability scenarios where Provider Backbone Bridge functionality is used in H-VPLS with Ethernet or MPLS access network to attain better scalability in terms of number of customer MAC addresses and number of service instances. The document also describes the scenarios and the mechanisms for incorporating Provider Backbone Bridge functionality within H-VPLS with existing Ethernet access and interoperability among them. Furthermore, the document discusses the migration mechanisms and scenarios by which Provider Backbone Bridge functionality can be incorporated into H-VPLS with existing MPLS access. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/984/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1497/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1251/ |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Last call was requested |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-09-03
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-08-21
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-07-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Title: Extensions to VPLS PE model for Provider Backbone Bridging Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … Draft Title: Extensions to VPLS PE model for Provider Backbone Bridging Draft Name: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05 (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? Informational. This is the proper type of RFC as this is a document describing various different interoperability scenarios where Provider Backbone Bridging is used in H-VPLS. (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 describes different interoperability scenarios where Provider Backbone Bridge functionality is used in H-VPLS to attain better scalability. It also describes the scenarios and the mechanisms for incorporating Provider Backbone Bridge functionality within H-VPLS with existing Ethernet access and interoperability among them. Also it discusses the migration mechanisms and scenarios by which Provider Backbone Bridge functionality can be incorporated into H-VPLS with existing MPLS access. Working Group Summary: This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has been well reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations of the draft (and it's predecessor draft). It has been essentially stable since WG adoption in January 2010. Document Quality: The document is well structured and provides an exhaustive set of interoperability scenarios. Each scenario has an ASCII-art diagram and a full explanation of how the scenario operates. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Giles Heron (giheron@cisco.com) Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) (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 did a full review of the text of version 02 of the draft, leading to the authors issuing version 03 with various fixes - which was subsequently reviewed by the Document Shepherd. The Document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft. The document shepherd then asked the authors to issue version 04 to incorporate issues found in the review of version 03. A version 05 was subsequently issued to fix ID-nits. (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. 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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes. Cisco made a statement about IPR claimed in a predecessor draft (draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-pbb-interop-03) on July 23rd 2008. This was notified to the mailing list on July 9th 2013. Nortel networks made statements about IPR claimed in the draft on Jan 12th 2011 and Feb 25th 2011. These were notified to the L2VPN mailing list on Jan 13th 2010 and Feb 28th 2011 respectively but there was no discussion of these IPR claims on the list. At the last IETF, and more recently on the mailing list, the WG chairs have notified the WG that there the current ownership of the claimed IPR is unknown and have asked for feedback as to whether to publish the draft as an informational RFC. Given the lack of feedback from the WG the chairs suggest that we go ahead and publish the draft as an RFC. (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? When the WG meeting at IETF74 was asked for consensus on the draft about 6 people were in favour (the same number as had read the draft). 5 people (including 3 non-authors) indicated support for the draft on the mailing list poll and none objected. (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. None found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review. (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 - all normative references are to RFCs. (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 - all normative references are upward. (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 - no impact on status of existing RFCs. (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 simply states that IANA does not need to take any action for this draft. There are no new code points or registries defined in this document. (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. None. (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. No sections written in a formal language. |
2013-07-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2013-07-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-07-12
|
05 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pbb-interop |
2013-07-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed document writeup |
2013-07-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Document shepherd changed to Giles Heron |
2013-07-10
|
05 | Ali Sajassi | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05.txt |
2013-07-09
|
04 | Ali Sajassi | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-04.txt |
2012-11-16
|
03 | Samer Salam | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-03.txt |
2012-01-12
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-07-11
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02.txt |
2011-03-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-01.txt |
2011-02-25
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Nortel Networks Limited Statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-00 | |
2010-01-12
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Nortel Networks Limited Statement of IPR regarding draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-00 | |
2010-01-05
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-00.txt |