Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated Channel
draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-09-03
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-08-29
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-08-28
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2013-08-20
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-08-20
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-08-20
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2013-08-19
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-08-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-08-19
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2013-08-19
|
03 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-08-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-08-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2013-08-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-08-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was changed |
2013-08-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-08-19
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-08-15
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-08-14
|
03 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] Brevity is the soul of wit. |
2013-08-14
|
03 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-08-14
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-08-14
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-08-14
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-08-14
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-08-12
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-08-12
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-08-12
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Pete McCann |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Pete McCann |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2013-08-08
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-08-06
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-08-06
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-08-05
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-08-05
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-08-15 |
2013-07-31
|
03 | Pete McCann | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Pete McCann. |
2013-07-31
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-07-31
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-03.txt |
2013-07-31
|
02 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2013-07-25
|
02 | Pearl Liang | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2013-07-24
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-07-24
|
02 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-02. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-02. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We have a question about one of the IANA actions requested in this draft document. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, the subregistry called "Associated Channel Header TLV Registry" in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters will be removed in its entirety, leaving no record in the PWE3 master registry. Second, in the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types Registry" also in the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters there is a column for a field named "TLV Follows." IANA will remove this column (the column only) and leave the remaining columns intact. IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. --- QUESTION: Section 4.2 is to remove the column marked "TLV Follows" from the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types Registry". Should this document be cited in the defining reference of the sub-registry alongside [RFC4385],[RFC5586] and [RFC Errata 1940]? 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. |
2013-07-18
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete McCann |
2013-07-18
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete McCann |
2013-07-18
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2013-07-18
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2013-07-17
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-07-17
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Retiring TLVs from the Associated … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated Channel) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated Channel' 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 2013-07-31. 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 The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header (ACH). RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message. These TLVs are called ACH TLVs No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses an ACH TLV. Furthermore, it is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to be processed substantially in hardware, the use of ACH TLVs is undesirable. This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the associated registry. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-07-17
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-07-17
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-07-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
2013-07-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-07-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-07-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-07-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-07-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-07-11
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | 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? … 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: Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated Channel draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-02.txt is published as an RFC on the Standards Track. Since this document updates RFC5586, a Standards track RFC, it need to be on the on the Standards Track. What's more this update is the entire intent of the 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 The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header (ACH). RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the Associated Channel Header (ACH) between the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message. These TLVs are called ACH TLVs No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses an ACH TLV. Furthermore, it is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to be processed substantially in hardware, the use of ACH TLVs is undesirable. This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the associated IANA registry. 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 strong support for this document in the working group and it has been has been well reviewed. 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? Our AD and also on of the co-authors claims that he has 237 implementations running on various households devices, including his cat. Since the AD is a Welshman, telling of more or less fantastic stories is a welish knack. The shepherd does not take this seriously. Since this is removing an unused "feature" from RFC 5586 the shepherd believes that implementations or IPRs are not possible. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Andersson is the document shepherd. Spencer Dawkins is/will be 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. Considering the somewhat unusual history this document have, the shepherd has reviewed three times. When the author first solicited comments on the un-posted document, when we had the poll to make a working group documentidea and during working group last call. Please note that the discrepancy between our current practice; not defining GACh header TLVs (something that the working group have agreed to) and what is said in RFC 5586 was pointed out in an IESG review of another document specifying a channel type for the GACh. This document does nothing more than document a current practice that has already been established and agreed to by the working group. The document shepherd believes it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. Yes - both authors have confirmed tht they are not aware of any IPR for this doucment. It is the shepherds opinion, that this is not possible to (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. It is the shepherds opinion, that this is not possible to generate any IPRs 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? The working group is behind this document. It has been well discussed and reviewed. (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. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no such formal review criteria. (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 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. The publication will update RFC 5586, this is captured and discussed in all relevant places in the document. (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 consideration section is clear and well written. The only actions requried by IANA is to remove an unused registry and remove a corresponding column in another registry. (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 formal language. |
2013-07-11
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2013-07-11
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-07-11
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-07-03
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2013-07-03
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
2013-07-03
|
02 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv |
2013-07-03
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | Shepherding AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2013-07-03
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | Shepherding AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2013-07-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2013-06-28
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-02.txt |
2013-06-08
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.txt |
2013-05-23
|
00 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
2013-05-23
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.txt |