Skip to main content

Node Behavior upon Originating and Receiving Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error Messages
draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Robert Sparks
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2009-10-23
06 Cindy Morgan Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from BCP
2009-10-23
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-10-22
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-10-22
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-10-22
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-10-22
06 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2009-10-22
06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-10-22
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2009-10-22
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2009-09-28
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Robert Sparks
2009-09-28
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2009-09-28
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2009-09-28
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-09-28
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-06.txt
2009-09-11
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10
2009-09-10
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman.
2009-09-10
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-09-10
06 Pasi Eronen [Ballot comment]
I agree that this looks more like Proposed Standard than BCP.
2009-09-10
06 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-09-09
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-09-09
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-09-09
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot comment]
agree this should not be BCP
2009-09-09
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-09-09
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-09-09
06 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
(a) Section 2.2 seems internally inconsistent: in accordance with 2205, a node receiving a
PathErr message takes no action; in accordance with 3473, …
[Ballot comment]
(a) Section 2.2 seems internally inconsistent: in accordance with 2205, a node receiving a
PathErr message takes no action; in accordance with 3473, a node receiving a PathErr message
with Path_State_Removed in the ERROR_SPEC should take action, but is not required to.

IMHO the 3473 exception is too important to bury halfway through the paragraph with a mild
sentence beginning with "Note that..."

Perhaps the the Path_State_Removed processing merits a new paragraph beginning with:
"There is one exception where the receiving node MAY change the state.", or something
along that line.

(b) It might be good to append the references [RFC3209] [RFC3473] to the first sentence in
the Security Considerations, so the readers don't have to guess where those "security
considerations are already specified."
2009-09-09
06 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
There is only one instance of RFC 2119 requirements language in this draft: a MUST in
section 2.3.  There are a number of …
[Ballot discuss]
There is only one instance of RFC 2119 requirements language in this draft: a MUST in
section 2.3.  There are a number of instances of lower case must and should in sections 2.1
and 2.2 that would seem to merit requirements language.
2009-09-09
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-09-09
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-09-09
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot comment]
I agree with Robert's discuss.
2009-09-09
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot comment]
I agree with Adrian's discuss.
2009-09-08
06 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
I have one point to discuss with the IESG. I expect to clear this discuss once that conversation happens.

Given the discussion we …
[Ballot discuss]
I have one point to discuss with the IESG. I expect to clear this discuss once that conversation happens.

Given the discussion we had about BCPs in Stockholm, why is this a BCP?
It explicitly says it "is a clarification and re-statement of the procedures set out in [RFC3209]", so why isn't this PS/Updates?
2009-09-08
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-09-08
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-09-08
06 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-09-08
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-09-07
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-09-05
06 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-09-04
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
In the Gen-ART Review ny Elwyn Davies on 3-Sep-2009, it says:
  >
  >  I think it would be helpful to be …
[Ballot discuss]
In the Gen-ART Review ny Elwyn Davies on 3-Sep-2009, it says:
  >
  >  I think it would be helpful to be more precise about the exact
  >  sections of RFC 3209 etc that are being clarified. I couldn't
  >  actually locate the sections addressed on a cursory inspection.
  >
  I think that this would be very helpful to a reader.  If for some
  reason this is difficult, an alternative is to summarize the
  behaviors that have become common practice in terms of the RFCs
  that specify the protocols.  For example, section 3 talks about
  the error codes that can be used to report a preempted TE LSP, but
  it does not tell the reader if this is a subset of the error codes
  that might seem to apply in this situation based on the protocol
  specification.
2009-09-04
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-09-02
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-02
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2009-09-02
06 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-02
06 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2009-09-02
06 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-31
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-08-27
06 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.
2009-08-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2009-08-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2009-08-17
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-08-17
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-08-17
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-17
06 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-17
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-08-17
06 (System) Last call text was added
2009-08-17
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-07-29
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-07-29
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-05.txt
2009-07-26
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel
2009-07-26
06 Adrian Farrel
[Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute and draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption.
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption should be read as the last of the batch.' added by …
[Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute and draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption.
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption should be read as the last of the batch.' added by Adrian Farrel
2009-05-18
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::External Party by Adrian Farrel
2009-05-17
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to Publication Requested::External Party from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel
2009-05-17
06 Adrian Farrel
This I-D is blocked on draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption waiting for authors update to include comments made during WG last call that were accidnetally not addressed before that …
This I-D is blocked on draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption waiting for authors update to include comments made during WG last call that were accidnetally not addressed before that I-D was passed to the AD for publication.
2009-04-02
06 Adrian Farrel Responsible AD has been changed to Adrian Farrel from Ross Callon
2009-02-05
06 Cindy Morgan
he MPLS working group requests publication of 3 documents


             
Documents: "Node behavior upon originating and receiving Resource
  …
he MPLS working group requests publication of 3 documents


             
Documents: "Node behavior upon originating and receiving Resource
            ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error message"
     

  Intended Status: BCP

               
            "MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption"
           

  Intended Status: Standards Track

       
            "PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP Reroute"
           

  Intended Status: Standards Track


Intended status : See above

Note: We decided to send all three documents at the same time because
their history is common. The soft pre-emption draft is the oldest and
the other two has been triggered by that draft to sort out open
issues in that document (or maybe issues that were opened up by that
document).

> (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?

Loa Andersson is the document shepherd for all three documents.
He has personally reviewed the I-Ds and believes they are ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

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

The documents has been reviewed by the MPLS working group.



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

No concerns.

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

The documents are sound.
No IPR disclosures filed for either of the documents.

> (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 has been a long history of twists and turns when it comes to
consensus for these documents. The current set of three documents
adresses all the working group last call comments and represents
the working consensus. The working group understands and suppots the
solution.

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

No threats. No discontent.

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

All checks made, the documents uses the new boiler-plate; there are no
errors in the nits. There are a couple of warnings in part this is becasue
the documents references each other and the document that is published
first will soon have "Outdated references" to the orthers, since you
can't published with future references. In part this is because one
of the drafts says "Category: Standards Track" rather than "Intended stauts:
Standards Track" and the nits tool does not recognize this. I guess that
this is rather common and could be fixed by the RFC-ED, since this a
filed that is changed anyway.


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

References split in all documents.

================>>>

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

The IANA section is present in draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-03.txt:
       
        the draft does not request any IANA actions

The IANA section is present in draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-14.txt:
       
        the draft request IANA allocation of a new flag value in the
        Session Attribute object.

        It does also request a new error sub-code value for the case
        of Soft Preemption.

The IANA section is present in the draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt:
       
        The document request that IANA upon approval of this document shall
        make assignment in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error
        Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry for the
        parameteres defined in the document.


> (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.

Technical summary:

draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-03.txt:
       
  This ID describes a common practice when a node sends or receives
  an RSVP Path Error message for a preempted MPLS-TE LSP. This
  document does not define any new  protocol extensions.
       

draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-14.txt:
       
  This document specifies MPLS-TE soft preemption through a number
  of protocol extensions. The goal is to reduce/eliminate traffic
  disruption on preempted TE LSPs.  Earlier MPLS RSVP-TE is defined
  supporting only immediate TE LSP displacement upon preemption. 
  The draft defines a reroute request notification which more
  gracefully mitigate the re-route process of preempted TE LSP. This
  may lead to a sitution of under-provioning while the soft
  preemption is executed. For this reason, the feature is primarily
  of interest in MPLS enabled IP networks with Differentiated
  Services and Traffic Engineering capabilities.

draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt:

  This document describes how RSVP PathErr Messages may be used to
  trigger rerouting of MPLS andGMPLS point-to-point TE-LSPs without
  first removing LSP state or resources. Yhere are a number of cases
  where such rerouting is beneficial, e.g. soft-preemption and
  graceful shutdown.  This document defines a new reroute-specific
  error code to allow for future definition of reroute
  application-specific error values.


>        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?

The soft/preemeption draft is "old" and been around for along time.
There have been several attempts to resolve the issues, and the other
two draft turned out to be necessary to cover all issues. There have
been two major issues
- both sof and hard preemption has ben poorly defined
- existing specification in MPLS and GMPLS have not been totally in
  synch, draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt resolves this


>        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?

There are no implementations that we know of, but we have polled the
wg mailing list and are waiting for responses.
2009-02-05
06 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-02-02
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-04.txt
2008-08-18
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-03.txt
2008-02-18
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-02.txt
2008-02-08
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-01.txt
2007-12-03
06 (System) Document has expired
2007-05-22
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-00.txt