Skip to main content

A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-04-10
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-03-24
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-03-24
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-02-02
06 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-01-30
06 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-01-28
06 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-01-28
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-01-28
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-01-27
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2014-01-27
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-01-27
06 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-01-27
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-01-27
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-01-24
06 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2014-01-24
06 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2014-01-24
06 Adrian Farrel State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2014-01-23
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-01-23
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
I am an author.
2014-01-23
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to Recuse from Abstain
2014-01-23
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-01-23
06 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2014-01-23
06 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-01-22
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-01-22
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2014-01-21
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-01-21
06 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-01-21
06 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-01-19
06 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-01-17
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-01-17
06 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2014-01-17
06 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2014-01-17
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-01-17
06 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2014-01-17
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-01-17
06 Lou Berger IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2014-01-17
06 Lou Berger New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-06.txt
2014-01-16
05 Adrian Farrel Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2014-01-16
05 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-23
2014-01-16
05 Adrian Farrel revised I-D needed to address last call comments
2014-01-16
05 Adrian Farrel State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2014-01-16
05 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2014-01-16)
2014-01-09
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein
2014-01-09
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein
2014-01-06
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-06
05 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2014-01-02
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2014-01-02
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2014-01-02
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bill Manning
2014-01-02
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bill Manning
2014-01-02
05 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-02
05 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks'
  as Informational RFC

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 2014-01-16. 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 Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile is the common set
  of MPLS protocol functions defined to enable the construction and
  operation of packet transport networks.  The MPLS-TP supports both
  point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transport paths.  This
  document defines the elements and functions of the MPLS-TP
  architecture applicable specifically to supporting point-to-
  multipoint transport paths.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
2014-01-02
05 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-01-02
05 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel Last call was requested
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was changed
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was generated
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was generated
2013-12-28
05 Adrian Farrel
AD review
=======

Thanks for this document.

I have done my usual AD review on receiving the publication request
and I find just a couple …
AD review
=======

Thanks for this document.

I have done my usual AD review on receiving the publication request
and I find just a couple of nits that can be rolled into the IETF
last call which I will start forthwith.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Dan will probably want to update his coordinates.

---

You don't need to be so enthusiastic with your acronyms in Section 1.2
The following are "well known" according to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt

  GMPLS  Generalized MPLS
  LDP    Label Distribution Protocol
  MPLS    Multiprotocol Label Switching

There is a serial comma missing from
  OAM    Operations, Administration and Maintenance
The comma is also missing in your text.

---

In Section 1.3 you say

  There is no definition for MPLS TE-LSP support of multipoint-to-
  multipoint connectivity and none is anticipated.

Without opening up a discussion of whether what you cay is true, can you
say why it is relevant? Perhaps "This document is limited to a
discussion of point-to-multipoint function and does not discuss
multipoint-to-multipoint support." You might also move this to Section
1.1.
2013-11-29
05 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson
The MPLS working group request that

      A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks

                …
The MPLS working group request that

      A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks

                draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-04/5

    Is published as an Informational RFC



As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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 is a rather typical framework and should be published
  as an Informational RFC. We are seeking IETF consensus, since the
  document potentially needs to be referenced ITU-T Recommendations,
  the document should go through an IETF Last Call.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction

      MPLS-TP is the common set of MPLS protocol functions defined
      to enable establsihment and operation of packet transport networks
      transoport LSPs.. 
      MPLS-TP supports both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transport
      paths (LSPs).  This document defines the elements and functions of
      the MPLS architecture applicable specifically to the support point-to-
      multipoint transport paths.
.

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?

      No such concerns.

      MPLS-RT reviewers, before adopting the document as a working
      group document, were David Allan, Jia He and Lizhong Jin.

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?

      This document is an Informational framework, and as such we will see
      no direct implementations of the document, though we are aware of
      intentions to implement protocols for establsihing P2MP MPLS-TP LSPs.

Personnel

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

      Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
      Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 reviewed the document in full two times
      and partly several times.
      The first full review were done prior to the acceptance of the document
      as a working group document, the second prior to starting the working
      group last call.
      The Document Shepherd is convinced that  the document is ready to be
      published as an Informational RFC.

(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 has been done, nor are they 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.


      The working group mailing list were polled for IPRs prior to the
      WGLC. All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of
      any IPR that is related 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 IPR claims 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.

        The document is also one of (the last) documents that we agreed
        with ITU-T SG15 to develop for MPLS-TP.

(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.

      The Document Shepherd has presonal checked that the document
      passes the nits tool checks clean.

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

    No requirements for formal reviews.

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

      The references are correctly split.

(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 refreneces.

(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 RFC will not change the status of any
      existing 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).

      There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.

(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 IANA registries that will require Expert Review is created by
      this document.

(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 automated reviews (other than nits) has been necessary for
      this document.
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson State Change Notice email list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson IESG state set to Publication Requested
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared.
2013-11-18
05 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-11-18
05 Lou Berger New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.txt
2013-11-03
04 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-11-01
04 Loa Andersson Authors. will evaluate the comments and see if a new version is motivated
2013-11-01
04 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2013-10-24
04 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2013-10-17
04 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-10-17
04 Loa Andersson Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2013-10-16
04 Lou Berger New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-04.txt
2013-10-14
03 Martin Vigoureux IPR poll running
2013-10-14
03 Martin Vigoureux IETF WG state changed to WG Document from WG Document
2013-10-14
03 Martin Vigoureux Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set.
2013-10-11
03 Lou Berger New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-03.txt
2013-09-30
02 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-02.txt
2013-09-11
01 Loa Andersson Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson
2013-04-08
01 Lou Berger New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-01.txt
2013-01-21
00 Stewart Bryant New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-00.txt