MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and Loopback Functions
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-08

[Ballot discuss]
I will probably move to YES on the call.

But in the mean time, are the LOCK and LOOPBACK functions restricted to P2P LSPs? I would assume not, but the document doesn't say.

Upon approval of this document, IANA will register the following
Pseudowire Associated Channel Type at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters:

Value Description TLV Follows Reference
----------- ----------------------- ----------- ---------
TBD LI No [RFC-to-be]

[Ballot comment]
s1.1: Is it update or replace s7.1.1?  I guess it really doesn't matter, but if the intent is really to completely replace then maybe it'd be clearer to just say that.  Also, s6.2 of this draft discusses unlocking and s7.1.2 discussed unlocking so shouldn't s1.1 of this draft also point out that 7.1.2 is also updated/replaced?

s2.2: RFC 6371 uses LKI for Lock Instruction instead of LI.  Are there other MPLS RFCs/I-Ds that use LKI instead of LI?  Just trying to make sure they're all lined up nicely.

s2.2: add: NMS    Network Management System

s4.1: r/This possible for/This is possible for ?

s5.2: Any reason to not start at 0?  Seems like you're burning a number.

s7: Well I'm not so sure it's a security issue, but is there a concern about sending real traffic during a loopback?  In other words should you always send some dummy traffic?

[Ballot comment]
- It seems that the LI message allows setting a timer so that
repeat LI messages only need to be sent every 255 seconds, and one
of those every ~15 minutes (255*3.5) would keep a locked section
locked.  Would it be worth nothing this potential DoS in the
security considerations, since that's quite a good return for the
putative attacker in terms of bits sent by the attacker vs. bits
not sent due to the DoS?

- NMS is used but not expanded/defined
- s/despatch/dispatch/?
- s/must e/must be/
- s/either end/both ends/ would be better in 6.2, 1st para

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (MPLS Transport Profile lock Instruct and Loopback Functions) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS Transport Profile lock Instruct and Loopback Functions'
  as a 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 2011-10-18. 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

  Two useful Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
  functions in a transport network are "lock" and "loopback". The lock
  function enables an operator to lock a transport path such that it
  does not carry client traffic, but can continue to carry OAM messages
  and may carry test traffic. The loopback function allows an operator
  to set a specific node on the transport path into loopback mode such
  that it returns all received data.

  This document specifies the lock function for MPLS networks and
  describes how the loopback function operates in MPLS networks.

  This document updates RFC 6371 section 7.1.1.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb/


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

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1439/

This document contains a "downref" to RFC 6371, the Informational RFC that it updates.

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
>      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG for publication.



> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>      and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
>      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>      have been performed?

The document has been through the review process for mpls-tp
documents, meaning that in addition to the reviewed in the mpls
amd pwed working groups, it has also been reviewed the ITU-T SG15.
All comments in the working group last has been addressed by the
authors and a one week call held to verify that the comments been
correctly understood and addressed.


The shephered is convinced that this is sufficient review for this
framework document.


> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>      AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.


> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>      issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>      been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
>      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>      this issue.

One minor "concern". We added "This document uopdates RFC 6371" - the
OAM Framwork rather late in the process, would be good if this were
pointed out in the IETF last call.


> (1.e) 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 good consensus around this draft, it has been through
working group last call. The last call was brought to the notice of
SG15 in ITU-T who reviewed the document. It has also passed a
working group call to verify  that LC comments were correctly
addressed - with very minor comments. The the last call comments has
been carefully discussed between the authors and people making the
comments - all comments has been resolved.


> (1.f) 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
>      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats or extreme discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
>      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
>      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
>      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

This document passes the nit test without any complaints!!!


> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
>      informative? 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
>      strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
>      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
>      so, list these downward references to support the Area
>      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are correctly split.

All documents that are normatively referenced are in IESG review or
published RFCs.

The document updates RFC 6371, this document is not in the list of
refrences. It is unclear it it need to be; if it does it will be
added if and when comments after the IETF last call are taken cae
of.


> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>      of the document? If the document specifies protocol
>      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>      registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
>      the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>      procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
>      reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
>      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>      conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There is a clear and concise IANA section in this document
requesting an ACH Channel Tyope for LI OAM:
. Two new
IANA registries are defined and one new Associated Channel Type is
requested from the Pseudowire Associated Channel Type registry.


> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>      an automated checker?

No such formal language.

> (1.k) 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 document specifies one function and describes a second function
  which are applicable to MPLS transport networks. The first function
  enables an operator to lock a transport path while the second enables
  an operator to set, in loopback, a given node along a transport path.
  This document also defines the extension to MPLS operation,
  administration, and maintenance (OAM) to perform the lock function.


Working Group Summary

  This document is a MPLS working group document, and part of the joint
  IETF - ITU.T MPLS-TP project. It has been reviewed in both organizations
  and there is a solid support for the document.

Document Quality

The document is well reviewed in the MPLS and PWE3 working groups,the
ITU-T and the MPLS-TP project.