Egress Validation in Label Switched Path Ping and Traceroute Mechanisms
draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-01
|
12 | Jim Guichard | AD review posted === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Ud8EHEsu4_HO_LH24zGXQdgOhXA/ === |
2024-04-01
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard, Deepti Rathi, Shraddha Hegde, Kapil Arora, Zafar Ali, Nagendra Nainar (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-01
|
12 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2024-03-20
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Jim Guichard |
2024-03-15
|
12 | Tarek Saad | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-03-15
|
12 | Tarek Saad | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-03-15
|
12 | Tarek Saad | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## Document History 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? [Ans]: The WG consensus represents broad agreement. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? [Ans]: No. 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.) [Ans]: 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)? [Ans]:An Implementations Status was added in Section 8 of the document. ## 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. [Ans]: no, the contents propose extensions to procedures of Nil FEC described in RFC8029. 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. [Ans]: Yes, MPLS review team members reviewed before adoption by the WG. Further early reviews by the RTGDIR members and all comments have been 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]? [Ans]: Document does not contain a YANG module. 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. [Ans]: not applicable. ## 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? [Ans]: The document has useful extensions to procedures described in RFC8029 when using Nil FEC. It proposes the addition of a new Egress TLV that contains the egress information along with the FEC Stack TLV with the Nil FEC to help in validating the Nil-FEC on the receiving router. 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? [Ans]: The RTG-DIR was engaged to perform early review. 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? [Ans]: Proposed Standard. 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. [Ans]: A first IPR poll was done before adoption of the document. A second IPR poll was done before WGLC. There following IPR is disclosed against this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5656/ 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. [Ans]: Currently, the document has 5 authors at the front page. 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.) [Ans]: No Nits warnings or errors exist in the current state. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. [Ans]: None identified. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? [Ans]: None. 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. [Ans]: None. 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? [Ans]: None. 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. [Ans]: 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]). [Ans]: The IANA considerations section of the document contains a request for two allocations as follows (see also https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.txt): 1. [IANA] has assigned an early allocation from the TLVs Sub-Registry of optional TLVs range (range of TLVs that can be silently dropped if not recognized) on 2023-10-05: Value Description Reference 32771 Egress TLV Section 3 of this document A prior allocation for the same above TLV was deprecated as it came from the range of non-optional TLVs (range for TLVs that require an error message if not recognized]). The prior allocation is currently marked as DEPRECATED in IANA's table. 28 EGRESS TLV [draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-01] No Sub-TLVs (DEPRECATED) 2. [IANA] has assigned an early allocation for the Return Code for "Replying router is an egress for the prefix in Egress TLV" in the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" in "Return Codes" sub-registry. Value Description Reference 36 Replying router is an egress for the prefix in Egress TLV for the FEC at stack depth RSC 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. [Ans]: None. [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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/ |
2024-03-15
|
12 | Tarek Saad | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-03-15
|
12 | Tarek Saad | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-03-15
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Andrew Alston (IESG state changed) |
2024-03-15
|
12 | Tarek Saad | Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2024-03-15
|
12 | Tarek Saad | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-03-12
|
12 | Tarek Saad | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## Document History 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? [Ans]: The WG consensus represents broad agreement. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? [Ans]: No. 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.) [Ans]: 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)? [Ans]:An Implementations Status was added in Section 8 of the document. ## 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. [Ans]: no, the contents propose extensions to procedures of Nil FEC described in RFC8029. 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. [Ans]: Yes, MPLS review team members reviewed before adoption by the WG. Further early reviews by the RTGDIR members and all comments have been 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]? [Ans]: Document does not contain a YANG module. 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. [Ans]: not applicable. ## 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? [Ans]: The document has useful extensions to procedures described in RFC8029 when using Nil FEC. It proposes the addition of a new Egress TLV that contains the egress information along with the FEC Stack TLV with the Nil FEC to help in validating the Nil-FEC on the receiving router. 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? [Ans]: The RTG-DIR was engaged to perform early review. 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? [Ans]: Proposed Standard. 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. [Ans]: A first IPR poll was done before adoption of the document. A second IPR poll was done before WGLC. There following IPR is disclosed against this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5656/ 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. [Ans]: Currently, the document has 5 authors at the front page. 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.) [Ans]: No Nits warnings or errors exist in the current state. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. [Ans]: None identified. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? [Ans]: None. 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. [Ans]: None. 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? [Ans]: None. 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. [Ans]: 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]). [Ans]: The IANA considerations section of the document contains a request for two allocations as follows (see also https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.txt): 1. [IANA] has assigned an early allocation from the TLVs Sub-Registry of optional TLVs range (range of TLVs that can be silently dropped if not recognized) on 2023-10-05: Value Description Reference 32771 Egress TLV Section 3 of this document A prior allocation for the same above TLV was deprecated as it came from the range of non-optional TLVs (range for TLVs that require an error message if not recognized]). The prior allocation is currently marked as DEPRECATED in IANA's table. 28 EGRESS TLV [draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-01] No Sub-TLVs (DEPRECATED) 2. [IANA] has assigned an early allocation for the Return Code for "Replying router is an egress for the prefix in Egress TLV" in the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" in "Return Codes" sub-registry. Value Description Reference 36 Replying router is an egress for the prefix in Egress TLV for the FEC at stack depth RSC 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. [Ans]: None. [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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/ |
2024-03-12
|
12 | Tarek Saad | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2024-03-12
|
12 | Tarek Saad | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2024-03-01
|
12 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-12.txt |
2024-03-01
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-03-01
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Deepti Rathi , Kapil Arora , Nagendra Nainar , Shraddha Hegde , Zafar Ali |
2024-03-01
|
12 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-27
|
11 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-11.txt |
2024-02-27
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-02-27
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Deepti Rathi , Kapil Arora , Nagendra Nainar , Shraddha Hegde , Zafar Ali |
2024-02-27
|
11 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-20
|
10 | Tarek Saad | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2024-02-20
|
10 | Tarek Saad | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2024-01-08
|
10 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-10.txt |
2024-01-08
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-01-08
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Deepti Rathi , Kapil Arora , Nagendra Nainar , Shraddha Hegde , Zafar Ali |
2024-01-08
|
10 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2023-12-21
|
09 | Shraddha Hegde | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-09.txt |
2023-12-21
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-12-21
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Deepti Rathi , Kapil Arora , Nagendra Nainar , Shraddha Hegde , Zafar Ali |
2023-12-21
|
09 | Shraddha Hegde | Uploaded new revision |
2023-12-11
|
08 | Sasha Vainshtein | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein. |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Tarek Saad | Reviewed by Greg Mirsky and provided comments. Authors working on addressing comments. |
2023-12-04
|
08 | Tarek Saad | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2023-11-21
|
08 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein |
2023-11-21
|
08 | Daniam Henriques | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Zhaohui Zhang was withdrawn |
2023-11-05
|
08 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-08.txt |
2023-11-05
|
08 | Deepti Rathi | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Deepti Rathi) |
2023-11-05
|
08 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-31
|
07 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-10-30
|
07 | Tarek Saad | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-06-19
|
07 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-07.txt |
2023-06-19
|
07 | Deepti Rathi | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Deepti Rathi) |
2023-06-19
|
07 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-15
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2023-04-22
|
06 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2023-04-17
|
06 | Tarek Saad | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-04-09
|
06 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-06.txt |
2023-04-09
|
06 | Deepti Rathi | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Deepti Rathi) |
2023-04-09
|
06 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-07
|
05 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-05.txt |
2022-10-07
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-10-07
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Deepti Rathi , Kapil Arora , Nagendra Nainar , Shraddha Hegde , Zafar Ali , mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-10-07
|
05 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-01
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-03-30
|
04 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-04.txt |
2022-03-30
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Deepti Rathi) |
2022-03-30
|
04 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-12-06
|
03 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-03.txt |
2021-12-06
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-12-06
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Deepti Rathi , Kapil Arora , Nagendra Nainar , Shraddha Hegde , Zafar Ali |
2021-12-06
|
03 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-12-03
|
02 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-02.txt |
2021-12-03
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-12-03
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Deepti Rathi , Kapil Arora , Nagendra Nainar , Shraddha Hegde , Zafar Ali |
2021-12-03
|
02 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-11-03
|
01 | Tarek Saad | Notification list changed to tsaad.net@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2021-11-03
|
01 | Tarek Saad | Document shepherd changed to Tarek Saad |
2021-10-20
|
01 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-01.txt |
2021-10-20
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Deepti Rathi) |
2021-10-20
|
01 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-04
|
00 | Tarek Saad | This document now replaces draft-rathi-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec instead of None |
2021-10-04
|
00 | Deepti Rathi | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-00.txt |
2021-10-04
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-09-21
|
00 | Deepti Rathi | Set submitter to ""Deepti N. Rathi" ", replaces to draft-rathi-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec and sent approval email to group chairs: mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-09-21
|
00 | Deepti Rathi | Uploaded new revision |