IGP Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-22
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-02-16
|
22 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2025-02-16
|
22 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2025-02-13
|
22 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-22.txt |
2025-02-13
|
22 | (System) | New version approved |
2025-02-13
|
22 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2025-02-13
|
22 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2025-02-10
|
21 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mahesh Jethanandani has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2025-02-09
|
21 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-21.txt |
2025-02-09
|
21 | (System) | New version approved |
2025-02-09
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2025-02-09
|
21 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2025-02-06
|
20 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Christer Holmberg for the GENART review. Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT feedback. |
2025-02-06
|
20 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2025-02-06
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2025-02-06
|
20 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-20.txt |
2025-02-06
|
20 | (System) | New version approved |
2025-02-06
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2025-02-06
|
20 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2025-02-06
|
19 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2025-02-06
|
19 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-19.txt |
2025-02-06
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2025-02-06
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2025-02-06
|
19 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2025-02-06
|
18 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list. |
2025-02-05
|
18 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2025-02-05
|
18 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] In Section 4.1.3.2 you seem to have forgotten that a 3 byte metric can only encode 2^24-1. It looks like you pasted the … [Ballot comment] In Section 4.1.3.2 you seem to have forgotten that a 3 byte metric can only encode 2^24-1. It looks like you pasted the OSPF encoding without revising the possible metric range. |
2025-02-05
|
18 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2025-02-05
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot discuss] Section 9, paragraph 0 > Operational consideration defined in [RFC9350] generally apply to the > extensions defined in this … [Ballot discuss] Section 9, paragraph 0 > Operational consideration defined in [RFC9350] generally apply to the > extensions defined in this document as well. This document defines > metric-type range for user defined metrics. When user defined > metrics are used in an inter-area or inter-level network, all the > domains should assign same meaning to the particular metric-type. The Operational Consideration in this document refers to Operational Consideration in [RFC9350] which mentions that operators can configure the FAD, but does not mention how. Configuration falls more under management than operational, but that aside, Section 3 of RFC 5706 gets into what should be considered when something needs to be configured or monitored. Please describe how the feature will be configured or managed in the network. If there is future work that needs to happen, please identify it. |
2025-02-05
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot discuss text updated for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2025-02-05
|
18 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2025-02-05
|
18 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot discuss] Section 9, paragraph 0 > Operational consideration defined in [RFC9350] generally apply to the > extensions defined in this … [Ballot discuss] Section 9, paragraph 0 > Operational consideration defined in [RFC9350] generally apply to the > extensions defined in this document as well. This document defines > metric-type range for user defined metrics. When user defined > metrics are used in an inter-area or inter-level network, all the > domains should assign same meaning to the particular metric-type. The Operational Consideration in this document refers to Operational Consideration in [RFC9350] which mentions that operators can configure the FAD, but does not mention how. In other words, is there a YANG model defined to configure this feature? If not, why not? |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] The document has six authors, which exceeds the recommended author limit. Has the sponsoring AD agreed that this is appropriate. |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] ** Section 3.1.1 Min Bandwidth (4 octets): A 32-bit field specifying the link bandwidth encoded in IEEE … [Ballot discuss] ** Section 3.1.1 Min Bandwidth (4 octets): A 32-bit field specifying the link bandwidth encoded in IEEE floating point format (32 bits). Please normatively cite this format. Is it IEEE754? Same comment for Sections 3.2.1, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.4.1, and 4.1.4.2 |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Christer Holmberg for the GENART review. ** Abstract. Editorial. Many networks configure the link metric relative to the link … [Ballot comment] Thank you to Christer Holmberg for the GENART review. ** Abstract. Editorial. Many networks configure the link metric relative to the link capacity. High bandwidth traffic gets routed as per the link capacity. Flexible algorithms provide mechanisms to create constraint based paths in an IGP. This draft documents a generic metric type and set of bandwidth related constraints to be used in Flexible Algorithms. Reading this abstract using a dictionary’s definition of some of these phrases could lead to significant confusion. Could the text more clearly state the IGP appropriate context. For example: -- “Many networks configure the ink metric relative to the link capacity”, what’s a link metric? Do you mean “IGP link metric”? -- “Flexible algorithms provide mechanisms to create constraint based paths in an IGP”, what kind of flexible algorithms. Do you mean “The IGP Flexible Algorithm defined in RFC9350 …”? ** Section 2. The metric type field is assigned by the "IGP metric type" IANA registry. Metric types 0-127 are standard metric types as assigned by IANA. This document further specifies a user-defined metric type space of metric types 128-255. These are user defined and can be assigned by an operator for local use. -- Isn’t it the “IGP Metric-Type” registry not “IGP metric type” per https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-metric-type? -- What is the basis of the code point allocation range 0-127 being different from 128-255? The registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-metric-type) doesn’t seem to make a distinction. I do see that 128-255 is set aside for Flexible Algorithms in the “IGP Algorithm Types” registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types) ** Section 2.2. Should the Reserve field be set to zero by the sender and be ignored by the receiver? Same question for Sections 4.1.4.1 and 4.1.4.2. ** Section 2.2. Type (2 octets): A 16-bit field assigned by IANA (To Be Determined as TBD21/TBD22/TBD23). This value uniquely identifies the Generic Metric TLV. Why does the OSPF Generic Metric Sub-TLV have three types? What’s the difference? ** Section 4.1.3.1. Per the Flags, field, should the unassigned values be set to zero? Same question for Sections 4.1.3.2, 4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2 ** Section 10.1 IGP Metric-type Registry is updated to include another column specifying whether the pariticular metric-type is allowed in the generic-metric sub-TLV or not. … 128-255(TBA) User defined metric this document yes -- What does the TBA mean here? -- Does the registration procedure for this range change? -- Shouldn’t the introductory text say that the 128-255 range is being redefined? ** Section 10.2. It would improve readability to mention that “IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV” is part of the “IS-IS TLV Codepoints” registry group. ** Section 10.3. It would improve readability to mention that the “OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLVs” registry is part of the “Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters” registry group. ** Section 10.4. It would improve readability to mention that the “IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information” registry is part of the “IS-IS TLV Codepoints” registry group ** Section 10.5 – 10.6. Same comment about mentioning the parent registry group. |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot comment] Section 1, 'elephant flows', I had to look this up, it might be worth a small explanation. Section 5, 'winning FAD', I'm not … [Ballot comment] Section 1, 'elephant flows', I had to look this up, it might be worth a small explanation. Section 5, 'winning FAD', I'm not sure what to think of this. It seems odd. Does a particular definition actually 'win'? What happens to the loser definitions? Section 7 or 8: It appears that this might be a bigger opportunity for a denial of service attack? |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley |
2025-02-04
|
18 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2025-02-03
|
18 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2025-02-03
|
18 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Acee Lindem for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status, there is no justification for six authors though. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Support of metrics by IGP routers It is perhaps specified in other RFCs, but I failed to see the specification of what to do when a router receives a metric that it does not support. ### Section 1 Should the terms throughput be used in addition to bandwidth ? E.g., s/High bandwidth traffic/High throughput traffic/ ? s/This document proposes /This document specifies / (or "defines"), after all it will be published as a PS RFC ;-) Else, this section is super well written and easy to read. Suggest adding a reference to "PCE". ### Section 2 Suggest adding references to IS-IS and OSPF. Please expand "ASLA". ### Section 2.1 It took me a while to understand that figure 1 is not part of bullet item g. Please insert some leading text to ensure a clear understanding of the figure 1 between bullet g and the figure 1. Like done in section 2.2 for figure 2. ### Sections 2.1 & 2.2 `The value is taken from the "IGP metric-type" registry maintained by IANA`, but it was written previously that values 128-255 are for private use. ### Section 3.1.1 Should there be a reference to `IEEE floating point format (32 bits)` ? ### Section 10.1 Strongly suggest to add a reference to https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-metric-type rather than using "IGP Metric-type Registry" ## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## Requirements language While correct, it appears at an unusual location. I guess that the RFC editor will fix it. ### Section 2.1 s/0XFFFFFF/0xFFFFFF/ or be consistent on how to write hexadecimal constant. ### Section 9 s/When user defined metrics/When user-defined metrics/ ### Section 10.1 s/ pariticular / particular / ### Use of SVG graphics To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-) |
2025-02-03
|
18 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2025-01-31
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2025-01-28
|
18 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2025-01-19
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2025-01-19
|
18 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-18.txt |
2025-01-19
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2025-01-19
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2025-01-19
|
18 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-12-27
|
17 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2024-12-19
|
17 | Marcus Ihlar | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Marcus Ihlar. Sent review to list. |
2024-12-19
|
17 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. Sent review to list. |
2024-12-18
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2025-02-06 |
2024-12-18
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot has been issued |
2024-12-18
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-12-18
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-12-18
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-12-18
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-12-17
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-12-12
|
17 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2024-12-12
|
17 | David Dong | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question about the first and third actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are ten actions which we must complete. First, in the IGP Metric-Type registry in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/ the registry will be changed to include a new field for "Allowed in generic-metric." The entries for the Types 0, 1 and 2 will be set to "No." IANA Question --> Should [ RFC-to-be ] be added to the reference for this modified registry? Second, also in the IGP Metric-Type registry in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/ a new registration will be made as follows: Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Bandwidth Metric Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Allowed in generic-metric: Yes Third, section 2 of the draft appears to divide the IGP Metric Type space into two parts: metric types 0-127, which are standard metric types as assigned by IANA, and metric types 128-255, which are user-defined metric types. Section 10.1 of the document specifies Types 128-255(TBA) for the user-defined metrics. Reading [RFC8126], what should be the revised registration procedure for the Types 128-255? Fourth, in the IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV registry in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/ the following four early allocations will be made permanent and their references changed as follows: Type: 6 Description: IS-IS Exclude Minimum Bandwidth Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1.1] Type: 7 Description: IS-IS Exclude Maximum Delay Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1.2] Type: 8 Description: IS-IS Reference Bandwidth Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.1.3.1] Type: 9 Description: IS-IS Threshold Metric Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be;Section 4.1.3.2] Fifth, in the OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLVs registry in the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-parameters/ the following four early allocations will be made permanent and their references changed as follows: Type:6 Description: OSPF Exclude Minimum Bandwidth Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.2.1 ] Type: 7 Description: OSPF Exclude Maximum Delay Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.2.2 ] Type: 8 Description: OSPF Reference Bandwidth Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.1.4.1 ] Type: 9 Description: OSPF Threshold Metric Sub-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.1.4.2 ] Sixth, in the IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information registry also in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/ a single early allocation will be updated made permanent and its reference changed as follows: Type: 17 Description: Generic metric Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ] 22: Y 23: Y 25: Y 141: Y 222: Y 223: Y As this updates a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." Seventh, in the IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLV Codepoints for Application-Specific Link Attributes registry also in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/ a single temporary registration will be made permanent and its reference changed as follows: Type: 17 Description: Generic metric Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.1 ] Eighth, in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry in the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ a single early allocation will be updated, made permanent and its reference changed as follows: Type: 25 Description: Generic metric Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ] L2BM: Y Ninth, in the Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2) registry on the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ a single early allocation will be made permanent and its reference changed as follows: Type: 36 Description: Generic metric Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ] Tenth, in the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs registry in the Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ a single early allocation will be updated, made permanent and its reference changed as follows: Type: 34 Description: Generic metric Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 2.2 ] L2BM: Y We understand 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. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-12-12
|
17 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-12-12
|
17 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2024-12-07
|
17 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2024-12-04
|
17 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2024-12-04
|
17 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Marcus Ihlar |
2024-12-04
|
17 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-17.txt |
2024-12-04
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-12-04
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-12-04
|
17 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Jenny Bui | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Jenny Bui | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: acee.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, lsr-chairs@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: acee.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to consider the following document: - 'Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints' 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 2024-12-17. 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 Many networks configure the link metric relative to the link capacity. High bandwidth traffic gets routed as per the link capacity. Flexible algorithms provide mechanisms to create constraint based paths in an IGP. This draft documents a generic metric type and set of bandwidth related constraints to be used in Flexible Algorithms. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Jenny Bui | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Last call was requested |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-12-03
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-11-25
|
16 | (System) | Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed) |
2024-11-25
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-11-25
|
16 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-16.txt |
2024-11-25
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-11-25
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-11-25
|
16 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-11-19
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/3OSOmh6THVuql9wArgnQSV5CJzk/ |
2024-11-19
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Tony Li, Peter Psenak, Bruno Decraene, Shraddha Hegde, Rajesh Shetty, William Britto (IESG state changed) |
2024-11-19
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2024-10-07
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2024-09-23
|
15 | Acee Lindem | 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad … 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? In general, OSPF/IS-IS flex algorithm is understood by a subset of the working group. Of those who understand it, there was consensus. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was some discussion as to whether or not to include generic metric in the the document or a separate document. After inclusion was agreed to, there was an extensive discussion on the current and future applicability. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Yes Cisco IOS-XR has implemented all functionality in the draft except the bandwidth method of bandwidth metric calculation for IS-IS. Juniper has implemented the generic metric (section 2.1) and the flex-algo constraints (section 3.1) for IS-IS. No OSPF implementations of the draft were reported. Both companies reported their implementation status in an Email to the LSR list. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. N/A 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A Routing Directorate review was performed and the comments were addressed. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes - I've reviewed the document twice and provided comments which were incorporated 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The IETF stream is Proposed Standard. This is correct for a document that updates the base IGP Flex Algorithm functionality and the Datatracker reflects this. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. The author list had been reduced to six authors and all have contributed to the implementation or document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) All the document nits have been addressed. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16] No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA section and new code points have been reviewed. Specification of the L2BM applicability was added as a result of the review. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new registries were added. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2024-09-20
|
15 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-15.txt |
2024-09-20
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-09-20
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-09-20
|
15 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-09-06
|
14 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-14.txt |
2024-09-06
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-09-06
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-09-06
|
14 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-09-05
|
13 | Acee Lindem | 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad … 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? In general, OSPF/IS-IS flex algorithm is understood by a subset of the working group. Of those who understand it, there was consensus. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was some discussion as to whether or not to include generic metric in the the document or a separate document. After inclusion was agreed to, there was an extensive discussion on the current and future applicability. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Yes - Cisco IOS-XR has implemented most of the functionality in the document. This was reported in an Email to the LSR list. Hopefully, others will respond. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. N/A 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A Routing Directorate review was performed and the comments were addressed. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes - I've reviewed the document twice and provided comments which were incorporated 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? N/A 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The IETF stream is Proposed Standard. This is correct for a document that updates the base IGP Flex Algorithm functionality and the Datatracker reflects this. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. The author list had been reduced to six authors and all have contributed to the implementation or document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) There a couple nits which the editor is addressing. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16] No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA section and new code points have been reviewed. Specification of the L2BM applicability was added as a result of the review. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new registries were added. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2024-09-03
|
13 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2024-09-03
|
13 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-09-03
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed) |
2024-09-03
|
13 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-09-03
|
13 | Acee Lindem | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-08-29
|
13 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-13.txt |
2024-08-29
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-08-29
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-08-29
|
13 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-19
|
12 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-12.txt |
2024-05-19
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-05-19
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-05-19
|
12 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-30
|
11 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-11.txt |
2024-04-30
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-30
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-04-30
|
11 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-19
|
10 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-10.txt |
2024-04-19
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-19
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-04-19
|
10 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-14
|
09 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-09.txt |
2024-04-14
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-14
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-04-14
|
09 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-08
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2024-03-18
|
08 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-08.txt |
2024-03-18
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-03-18
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2024-03-18
|
08 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-20
|
07 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2024-02-19
|
07 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2024-02-19
|
07 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to acee.ietf@gmail.com from acee@cisco.com |
2024-02-19
|
07 | Acee Lindem | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2023-09-26
|
07 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07.txt |
2023-09-26
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-09-26
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rajesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2023-09-26
|
07 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-11
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-03-10
|
06 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-06.txt |
2023-03-10
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-10
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rejesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2023-03-10
|
06 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-16
|
05 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-05.txt |
2023-01-16
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-01-16
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rejesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2023-01-16
|
05 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-09
|
04 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-04.txt |
2023-01-09
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-01-09
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rejesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2023-01-09
|
04 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-09
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-07-08
|
03 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-03.txt |
2022-07-08
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-07-08
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rejesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2022-07-08
|
03 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-23
|
02 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02.txt |
2022-03-23
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-23
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rejesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2022-03-23
|
02 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-13
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-07-12
|
01 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt |
2021-07-12
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-12
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Peter Psenak , Rejesh Shetty , Shraddha Hegde , Tony Li , William Britto |
2021-07-12
|
01 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2021-05-31
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2021-05-31
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2021-05-31
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Notification list changed to acee@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set |
2021-05-31
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem |
2021-05-31
|
00 | Christian Hopps | This document now replaces draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con instead of None |
2021-05-31
|
00 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-00.txt |
2021-05-31
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-05-30
|
00 | Shraddha Hegde | Set submitter to "Shraddha Hegde ", replaces to draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-05-30
|
00 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |