Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Pseudowire Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) Advertised over IPv6
draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-12-05
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-12-04
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2012-12-04
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-12-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-12-03
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-12-03
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-12-03
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-12-03
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-12-01
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-12-01
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-11-30
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-29
|
04 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-04.txt |
2012-11-29
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer |
2012-11-29
|
03 | Pete Resnick | Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick |
2012-11-29
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] When I see the long list of RFC EDITOR notes for an 8 pages document... I won't spend my time trying reinsert the … [Ballot comment] When I see the long list of RFC EDITOR notes for an 8 pages document... I won't spend my time trying reinsert the notes in order to read a clean document. Bottom line: I will trust the other ADs on this one. |
2012-11-29
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-11-29
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing the issues raised by the RTGdir review. |
2012-11-29
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-11-28
|
03 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-11-27
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-27
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] I am updating my discuss based on a review by Matthew Bocci on behalf of the RTG Dir and PWE3 Chairs. The points … [Ballot discuss] I am updating my discuss based on a review by Matthew Bocci on behalf of the RTG Dir and PWE3 Chairs. The points that Matthew makes account for my confusion that lead to the original discuss. There has been discussion between the Review and on of the authors and there is a simple way forward on each of the points below. 1) Title: The title of the draft is "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs". This is confusing as it suggests that there are special PW FECs for IPv6. In fact, PW FECs are agnostic to the underlying IP version. Therefore, I suggest changing this to something like "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Pseudowire FECs Advertised over IPv6". 2) Abstract, 1st paragraph: The abstract (and only the abstract) refers to PW LSPs, but this is not common terminology in existing RFCs. It is true that each direction of an MPLS PW is comprised of a unidirectional LSP, but it would be better to try to align more closely with common terminology and call them the LSPs used for each direction of an MPLS PW. 3) Abstract, 2nd paragraph: The draft refers to an IPv6 PW. However, this term could be confused with the colloquial term for an IP Layer 2 transport PW, which is a specific PW type that can carry IPv4 or IPv6. I suggest replacing this term with 'a PW that is setup and maintained using an IPv6 LDP session.' Likewise, the short version of the draft title in the draft headers could be clarified to something like 'PW LSP Ping for IPv6'. 4) Introduction: there are a few places where the text refers to a 'target LDP session'. It isn't clear if this means the src/dst of the LDP session that an LSP ping echo request message is targeting (hence target is ok) or if it really means the 'targeted LDP session', which is what this type of LDP session is normally referred as. Please clarify. 5) Figure 1 and Figure 2 titles. These are not new FEC types for IPv4 and IPv6, but rather new target FEC stack sub-TLVs. I would help readability to modify the titles accordingly. |
2012-11-27
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot discuss text updated for Stewart Bryant |
2012-11-27
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-11-26
|
03 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-11-26
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-11-26
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-11-23
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Just two editorial nits (with a whine to the IESG about one of them): In the abstract: This document extends the PW … [Ballot comment] Just two editorial nits (with a whine to the IESG about one of them): In the abstract: This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379. That doesn't make sense to me. If the reason that this document updates 4379 is because it extends the ping and traceroute mechanisms, then you should just say that: This document updates and extends RFC 4379 so that the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms can be used with IPv6 PWs. or simply strike the clause ", and updates RFC 4379", since it's unnecessary. If that's not what you meant, you had better explain what in 4379 got updated. But I think the suggested fix is probably what you meant. [Grump to IESG: This is why the nits rule is stupid. I am guessing that the abstract originally said "This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so they can be used with IPv6 PWs", somebody told these authors that abstract *had to* state that it updates 4379, and the authors dutifully put in the useless final clause. This is a waste of text and furthers the idea that this is a rule that must be followed even if the text is meaningless. It isn't a rule and I find adding this in is now just another writing tic by draft authors.] Section 3.1: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PW Type | Must Be Zero | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Instead of "Must Be Zero", can you label this "zero padding" as you do in section 3.2? "Must Be Zero" looks like it is a field with semantics that must be set to zero, whereas I think this is just padding. |
2012-11-23
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-11-16
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-11-13
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | Telechat date has been changed to 2012-11-29 from 2012-11-15 |
2012-11-13
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation |
2012-11-13
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not taken through the pseudowire WG so that it … [Ballot discuss] This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. As far as I am able to determin, this document was not formally reviewed by the PWE3 WG, one purpose of this discuss is thus to make sure that this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. My second concern is whether FEC128 data structures should be defined in this draft, or whether this draft should be used as an opportunity to retire FEC128, in which case the FEC 128 IPv6 definition should be removed from the draft. This is a discussion that should take place in the PWE3 WG. |
2012-11-13
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot discuss text updated for Stewart Bryant |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not taken through the pseudowire WG so that it … [Ballot discuss] This is a pseudowire document and it is a great pity that it was not taken through the pseudowire WG so that it would be listed in their document set and thus be more visible to readers looking for PW related documents. I am not sure whether it is possible to get this to show on with their doc set but it would be useful if it could. As far as I am able to determin, this document was not reviewed by the PWE3 WG, thus the main purpose of this discuss is to make sure that this has been adequately reviewed by people with PW expertise. |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I dunno what FEC 128 and FEC 129 mean, but I assume the real audience for this would. |
2012-11-12
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-11-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2012-11-09
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-11-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2012-11-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2012-11-05
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2012-11-05
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-11-05
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-11-01
|
03 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03 and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two IANA actions which must be … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03 and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two IANA actions which must be completed. First IANA in the TLVs and sub-TLVs subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml The following existing registrations will be changed as follows: Type Sub-Type Value Field Reference ---- -------- -------------------------------------- ------------- 1 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ] 1 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire [ RFC-to-be ] 1 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire [ RFC-to-be ] Also, in the same subregistry, the following registrations will be changed as follows: Type Sub-Type Value Field Reference ---- -------- -------------------------------------- ------------- 21 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ] 21 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire [ RFC-to-be ] 21 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire [ RFC-to-be ] Second, also in the TLVs and sub-TLVs subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml The following existing registrations will be added as follows: Type Sub-Type Value Field Reference ---- -------- ------------------------- -------------- 1 [ TBD1 ] IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire [ RFC-to-be ] 1 [ TBD2 ] IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required 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. |
2012-11-01
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
2012-10-25
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2012-10-25
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2012-10-25
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2012-10-25
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-09. 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 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs. The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage. This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-11-15 |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-10-24
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-10-24
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.txt |
2012-10-24
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | AD review... Thanks for this document. I have done my usual AD review and have nothing to add except for some minor comments on the … AD review... Thanks for this document. I have done my usual AD review and have nothing to add except for some minor comments on the IANA section. If you could make an update that would be very helpful. You do not need to wait for the submission gates to reopen on 5th November. If you send me the file(s) for submission I will get the Secretariat to post them. Thanks, Adrian --- Section 6 It appears you are asking to *replace* the pointer to RFC 4379 for the three IPv4 sub-TLVs. I don't think you should do that because they are defined in 4379. So add the word "also". OLD Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to point to this document: NEW Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to also point to this document: END --- Section 6 usefully calls out TBD1 and TBD2, but the rest of the document uniformly uses TBD. If you could update to always use TBD1 and TBD2 this will ensure that the RFC Editor works with IANA to get this right. --- In Section 6, please explicitly ask IANA to make the appropriate entries in the Type 21 sub-TLVs list. |
2012-10-24
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation |
2012-10-23
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-10-23
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-10-23
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-10-23
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-10-23
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-10-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The MPLS working group request that: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-02 is published as an RFC on the standards track. This draft specific a rather small extension to RFC4379 (Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures), it adds elements necessary to use LSP Ping for IPv6 PWs. This protocol specification is intended for service provider networks to be useed under operational conditions, it clearly meets the criteria to become a standards track document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs. The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage. This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is a general agreement in the working group that some of our protocols need to be extended to meet requirements present in IPv6 networks. This is one of such extension to LSP Ping. There is good support for the document. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? We know of several implementations or intents to implement this draft. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Loa Andersson is the document shepherd. Who is the Responsible Area Director? Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd reviewed the document at the point in time when it was being polled to become a working group document and as a part of the preparation for the working group last call. The IANA section has been reviewed several times. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document shepherd believes that the current review situation is sufficient. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? A poll for IPRs has been done among the authors and in the working group. All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of any existing IPR claims. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-mpls- ipv6-pw-lsp-ping or its predecessor draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There are good support for this document! (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such threats! (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. This document passes the ID-nits tool clean. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review requirements! (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references are RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document extends and updates RFC4379, this is discussed in the Abstract and the Introduction (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document has a clear and well-written IANA section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such review required. |
2012-10-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Note added 'Loa Andersson (loa.andersson@ericsson.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-10-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-10-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-10-15
|
02 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping |
2012-10-11
|
02 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-02.txt |
2012-09-03
|
01 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-01.txt |
2012-05-29
|
00 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-00.txt |