Label Switched Path (LSP) Self-Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-06

[Ballot comment]
I see that the Security Considerations section says,
  "operators SHOULD
  filter LSP Self-ping packets at network ingress points"

I think it would be helpful to have the draft explicitly state the scope for this new function - within a single operator's network is my assumption.  If that assumption is not correct, I may come back with more questions.

There was also a suggestion made int he SecDir review that you may want to consider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=secdir

[Ballot comment]
I was looking at

  o  The UDP Destination Port MUST be lsp-self-ping (8503) [IANA.PORTS]
 
and wondering why this is a MUST. Is the answer that this mechanism works within an administrative domain, so you can just tell the other end what the port number needs to be?

[Ballot comment]
Did the WG consider updating RF C3209?

OLD:

  The node SHOULD be prepared to
  forward packets carrying the assigned label prior to sending the RESV
  message.

NEW:

  The node SHOULD be prepared to
  forward packets carrying the assigned label prior to sending the RESV
  message. When an ingress LSR receives an RESV message, it MAY/SHOULD/MUST
  invoke the LSP Self-ping procedures [this-RFC-to-be] to verify
  that forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, IANA will update the registration record for port number 8503 as follows:

OLD:

Service Name: lsp-self-ping
Port Number: 8503
Transport Protocol: udp
Description: MPLS LSP Self Ping
Assignee: Juniper Networks
Contact: Ron Bonica
Registration Date: 2015-06-11
Reference: [draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping]

NEW:

Service Name: lsp-self-ping
Port Number: 8503
Transport Protocol: udp
Description: MPLS LSP Self Ping
Assignee: IESG
Contact: IETF Chair
Registration Date: 2015-06-11
Modification Date: TBD
Reference: [RFC-to-be]

The current registration can be viewed at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

IANA understands that this is the only action required 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.

The MPLS Working Group requests that

                            LSP Self-Ping
                      draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-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?

The document should be published as an Proposed Standard. The document
defines new protocol so Proposed Standard is the right RFC type ,  This is
clearly indicated on the title page.

(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 fixes a problem relating to when in the establishment traffic
  may be sent on an LSP.

  When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can
  receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed
  on all downstream nodes.  According to the RSVP-TE specification, the
  ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives
  a RESV message.  However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through
  the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream
  nodes, traffic can be lost.

  The document describes new procedures called LSP Self-ping.  When an
  ingress LSR receives an  RESV message, it can invoke LSP Self-ping
  procedures to ensure that forwarding state has been installed on all
  downstream nodes.

  LSP Self-ping is an extremely light-weight mechanism.  It does not
  consume control plane resources on transit or egress LSRs.

  Even though there is a naming similarity between "MPLS Self Ping" and "MPLS
  LSP Ping" the protocols really has nothing in common.
  The protocols diagnose a different set of problems, listen for input on different
  UDP ports and behave differently. The only thing that they have in common is
  that they are named similarly.

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 only thing worth mentioning here is that there were a lot of
  discussion taking place at the time when the draft was accepted as
  a working group document. Especially there were discussion on
  whether there is an overlap with BFD mechanisms in documents
  that are developed in in the BFD working group.
  It is understood that on a very high level such an overlap exists, but
  when we get down to details this draft is quite separate from what is
  is done in BFD.
  The MPLS working converged on the understanding that this draft
  is very specific for LSP establishment with RSVP-TE and fills a gap
  that needs to be  filled. The BFD mechanisms are much more generic.

The support for the draft in the wg is quite good, and the progress  through
  the working group has been easy, once the discussion around adopting the
  draft as a working document had converged.
 

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?

  Yes there is at least one implementation. We have started an
  implementation poll and will update the Write-Up once we have
  further information.
  The review of the document is quite good, it has been through
  the mpls review team review and been discussed on the mailing
  list.
  No further specialist reviews are necessary.
Personnel

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

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 has been involved in the discussion about this
  document from the start, and reviewed the document several times.
  "Formal" reviews has been done before starting the MPLS-RT review and
  the working group adoption poll; and before starting the working group
  last call.

(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 issues or 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 authors (and contributors) have stated on the mpls working group
  mailing list that they are unaware of any IPRs that relates 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.

  There is IPR disclosure filed against this document,  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2476/.
  This was pointed out to the working group when we polled the draft
  to see if we had consensus to accept it as a working group document. The
  disclosure did not generate any discussion in the working group.

(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 support for the document is very good.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The document passes through the 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 reviews required.

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

  Yes - the references has been correctly split into normative and
  informative references.

(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 of this document will not changed the status of  any
  other RFCs.

(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 section is very simple, the IANA has allocated UDP port 8503
  for this protocol.

(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, so no new experts needed.

(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 automated reviewa necessary.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (LSP Self-Ping) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'LSP Self-Ping'
  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 2015-10-02. 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


  When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can
  receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed
  on all downstream nodes.  According to the RSVP-TE specification, the
  ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives
  a RESV message.  However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through
  the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream
  nodes, traffic can be lost.

  This memo describes LSP Self-ping.  When an ingress LSR receives an
  RESV message, it can invoke LSP Self-ping procedures to ensure that
  forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes.

  LSP Self-ping is an extremely light-weight mechanism.  It does not
  consume control plane resources on transit or egress LSRs.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2476/

The MPLS Working Group requests that

                            LSP Self-Ping
                      draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-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?

The document should be published as an Proposed Standard. The document
defines new protocol so Proposed Standard is the right RFC type ,  This is
clearly indicated on the title page.

(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 fixes a problem relating to when in the establishment traffic
  may be sent on an LSP.

  When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can
  receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed
  on all downstream nodes.  According to the RSVP-TE specification, the
  ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives
  a RESV message.  However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through
  the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream
  nodes, traffic can be lost.

  The document describes new procedures called LSP Self-ping.  When an
  ingress LSR receives an  RESV message, it can invoke LSP Self-ping
  procedures to ensure that forwarding state has been installed on all
  downstream nodes.

  LSP Self-ping is an extremely light-weight mechanism.  It does not
  consume control plane resources on transit or egress LSRs.

  Even though there is a naming similarity between "MPLS Self Ping" and "MPLS
  LSP Ping" the protocols really have LSP Self Ping has nothing in common.
  The protocols diagnose a different set of problems, listen for input on different
  UDP ports and behave differently. The only thing that they have in common is
  that they are named similarly.

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 only thing worth mentioning here is that there were a lot of
  discussion taking place at the time when the draft was accepted as
  a working group document. Especially there were discussion on
  whether there is an overlap with BFD mechanisms in documents
  that are developed in in the BFD working group.
  It is understood that on a very high level such an overlap exists, but
  when we get down to details this draft is quite separate from what is
  is done in BFD.
  The MPLS working converged on the understanding that this draft
  is very specific for LSP establishment with RSVP-TE and fills a gap
  that needs to be  filled. The BFD mechanisms are much more generic.

The support for the draft in the wg is quite good, and the progress  through
  the working group has been easy, once the discussion around adopting the
  draft as a working document had converged.
 

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?

  Yes there is at least one implementation. We have started an
  implementation poll and will update the Write-Up once we have
  further information.
  The review of the document is quite good, it has been through
  the mpls review team review and been discussed on the mailing
  list.
  No further specialist reviews are necessary.
Personnel

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

  Loa ANdersson is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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 has been involved in the discussion about this
  document from the start, and reviewed the document several times.
  "Formal" reviews has been done before starting the MPLS-RT review and
  the working group adoption poll; and before starting the working group
  last call.

(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 issues or 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 authors (and contributors) have stated on the mpls working group
  mailing list that they are unaware of any IPRs that relates 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.

  There is IPR disclosure filed against this document,  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2476/.
  This was pointed out to the working group when we polled the draft
  to see if we had consensus to accept it as a working group document. The
  disclosure did not generate any discussion in the working group.

(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 support for the document is very good.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The document passes through the 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 reviews required.

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

  Yes - the references has been correctly split into normative and
  informative references.

(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 of this document will not changed the status of  any
  other RFCs.

(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 section is very simple, the IANA has allocated UDP port 8503
  for this protocol.

(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, so no new experts needed.

(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 automated reviewa necessary.