IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-03

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working with me to clear my Discuss, which was:

This Discuss ballot is probably more accurately a "Please clue in a TSV AD who is trying to pattern match and failing" ballot, and likely quick to resolve.

But, I'm looking at this text:

4.  Updates to RFC 4379

  [RFC4379] specifies the use of the Router Alert Option in the IP
  header.  Sections 4.3 and 4.5 of [RFC4379] are updated as follows:
  for every time in which the "Router Alert IP option" is used, the
  following text is appended:

      In case of an IPv4 header, the generic IPv4 Router Alert Option
      value 0x0 [RFC2113] SHOULD be used.  In case of an IPv6 header,
                          ^^^^^^
      the IPv6 Router Alert Option value TBD1 allocated through this
      document for MPLS OAM MUST be used.
     
When I click over to Section 4.3 of [RFC4379], I see this text:

4.3.  Sending an MPLS Echo Request

  An MPLS echo request is a UDP packet.  The IP header is set as
  follows: the source IP address is a routable address of the sender;
  the destination IP address is a (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from
  the range 127/8 or IPv6 address from the range
  0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104.  The IP TTL is set to 1.  The source UDP port
  is chosen by the sender; the destination UDP port is set to 3503
  (assigned by IANA for MPLS echo requests).  The Router Alert option
  MUST be set in the IP header.
  ^^^^
 
Could you help me understand whether this is really a MUST in Section 4.3 of [RFC4379] that is morphing into a SHOULD for IPv4 and remaining a MUST in IPv6?

I have the same confusion in Section 4.5, but I'm betting the same answer applies.

[Ballot discuss]
This Discuss ballot is probably more accurately a "Please clue in a TSV AD who is trying to pattern match and failing" ballot, and likely quick to resolve.

But, I'm looking at this text:

4.  Updates to RFC 4379

  [RFC4379] specifies the use of the Router Alert Option in the IP
  header.  Sections 4.3 and 4.5 of [RFC4379] are updated as follows:
  for every time in which the "Router Alert IP option" is used, the
  following text is appended:

      In case of an IPv4 header, the generic IPv4 Router Alert Option
      value 0x0 [RFC2113] SHOULD be used.  In case of an IPv6 header,
                          ^^^^^^
      the IPv6 Router Alert Option value TBD1 allocated through this
      document for MPLS OAM MUST be used.
     
When I click over to Section 4.3 of [RFC4379], I see this text:

4.3.  Sending an MPLS Echo Request

  An MPLS echo request is a UDP packet.  The IP header is set as
  follows: the source IP address is a routable address of the sender;
  the destination IP address is a (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from
  the range 127/8 or IPv6 address from the range
  0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104.  The IP TTL is set to 1.  The source UDP port
  is chosen by the sender; the destination UDP port is set to 3503
  (assigned by IANA for MPLS echo requests).  The Router Alert option
  MUST be set in the IP header.
  ^^^^
 
Could you help me understand whether this is really a MUST in Section 4.3 of [RFC4379] that is morphing into a SHOULD for IPv4 and remaining a MUST in IPv6?

I have the same confusion in Section 4.5, but I'm betting the same answer applies.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the IPv6 Router Alert Option Values registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values/

a new option value is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: MPLS OAM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action that needs 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS OAM) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS OAM'
  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 2015-02-04. 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

  RFC 4379 defines the MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute mechanism, in which the
  Router Alert Option MUST be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo
  Request messages, and may conditionally be set in the IP header of
  the MPLS Echo Reply messages depending on the Reply Mode used.  While
  a generic "Router shall examine packet" Option Value is used for the
  IPv4 Router Alert Option (RAO), there is no generic Router Alert
  Option Value defined for IPv6 that can be used.  This document
  allocates a new generic IPv6 Router Alert Option Value that can be
  used by MPLS OAM tools, including the MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo
  Reply messages for MPLS in IPv6 environments.  Consequently, it
  updates RFC 4379.

  The initial motivation to request an IPv6 Router Alert Option (RAO)
  code point for MPLS OAM comes from MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute.
  However, this code point is applicable to all MPLS OAM and not
  limited to MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

The MPLS WG requests that

  IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS OAM
          draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02

is published as an RFC on the standards track.

(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?

  We request that this is published as a Standards Track RFC, this is
  also indicated in the title page header. The RFC needs to a Standards
  Track RFC since it updates RFC 4379 and makes an allocation from an IETF
  Consensus IANA registry:
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values/ipv6-routeralert-values.xhtml
  The intended status in clearly indicated in the document header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document updates RFC 4379

  This document fixes a gap in MPLS/IPv6, in RFC 4379 that defines
  the MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute mechanism, a Router Alert Option MUST
  be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Request messages, and may
  conditionally be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Reply messages.
  A generic "Router shall examine packet" Option Value is used for the
  IPv4 Router Alert Option (RAO). There is no corresponding generic Router Alert
  Option Value defined for IPv6. This document allocates this new generic IPv6
  RAO Value. The RAO value can be used by the entire set of MPLS OAM
  functions as needed, but the  initial motivation comes from using RFC 4379
  with IPv6.

  The document defines the RAO that will be used in the MPLS Echo Request
  and MPLS Echo Reply messagesin IPv6 environments.  Consequently, it
  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?

  This document is generally accepted by the working group, there are several
  implementations of RFC 4379 going on or planned and this gap is
  widely recognized.

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?

  No expert reviews necessary!

  The question about implementations is a bit imprecise for this document.
  There are several implementations that will use the assigned RAO Value,
  whether this qualifies as "implementations of the protocol" is open for
  debate.

  The RAO Value is necessary to correctly implement LSP Ping and Traceroute
  for IPv6 networks.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Document Shepherd: Loa ANdersson
  Responsible Area Director: Adrian Farrel

(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.

  Since this document is one of the first that actually fills one of the gaps pointed
  out by draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap (in AUTH48) it has been of interest to follow
  the development of this document carefully. The document shepherd has read
  every new version of the document, and  reviewed it at the wg adoption poll, wglc
  and prior to requesting publication.

(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.

  No such reviews necessary!

(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.

  All the authors have declared on the working group mailing list that
  they are unaware of any IPRs that relate to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    No IPRs disclosed against this document!

(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 is a very strong consensus that we need MPLS and MPLS OAM tools
  for IPv6 networks (as matter of fact it is also a policy by IESG); this document
  fills an exsting gap to make such implementations possible.

  This document has also been discussed in and reviewed by the 6man wg.

(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 discontent!

(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.

  The document passes the nits toll clean.

  One comment

  - date in the past, I can understand that this is useful when submitting drafts
    but for documents that been processed for a while, it is just extra noise; can
    we update the nits tool to only run that check if it is part of the posting
    process.

    The situation is that a document that was written about 1k RFCs before 5378
    is updated by this new document, but to the best of my understanding no text from
    that document is reproduced; I venture to say that the disclaimer is not needed.
    (But I'm happily stand corrected).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes - the references are correctly split!
  All normative references are to existing RFCs.

(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 the normative references are to existing 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.

  No - the publication of this document will not change the status of any
  existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

    The IANA considerations are well and clearly written, the registry from
    which the allocation is made is clearly identified.

    If anything we could have asked for assignement of the "first free" value,
    but since this seems to be IANA practice, it would be redundant.

(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 defined.

(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 formal language is used in the document.