OSPF Extensions to Advertise Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Target Discriminators
draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-06

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs subregistry of the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-parameters/

a single, new TLV is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
TLV Name: S-BFD Discriminator
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, "Acee Lindem" , akatlas@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, ospf-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPF extensions to advertise S-BFD Target Discriminator) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'OSPF extensions to advertise S-BFD Target Discriminator'
  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 2016-04-26. 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


  This document defines a new OSPF Router Information (RI) TLV that
  allows OSPF routers to flood the S-BFD discriminator values
  associated with a target network identifier.  This mechanism is
  applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator/ballot/


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

(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page 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 specifies extensions to OSPF Router Informational
      (RI) to for an OSPF router to advertise its Seamless BFD
      discriminators. The scope of an advertisement can be an OSPF area
      or the entire OSPF routing domain. The architecture for seamless
      BFD is described in "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
      (S-BFD)" - draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-05.


Working Group Summary:

      The document is an adjunct to the Seamless-BFD work being done in
      the BFD WG. It is very straight-forward and there hasn't been
      many comments.

      During WG last call, it was noted that the behavior must be
      specified when there are multiple instances of the S-BFD
      discriminator TLV. This comment was subsequently handled.

      The question of multiple S-BFD discriminators was also discussed
      in reference to the base Seamless BFD draft. This results in
      much discussion with appropriate text added to the base document
      indicating that this was basically a local matter and outside the
      scope of the standard.

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for some time and is being
      advanced now that the seamless BFD work is being advanced in
      the BFD working group.

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas 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 each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list.


(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.

      None.

(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.

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

      No.

(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 consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress. It complements work done on Seamless
      BFD in the BFD Working Group.

(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.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

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

      Not applicable.

(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?
 
      No. The RFC 4970 BIS draft is on the RFC Editor's queue.

(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.

(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.

(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).
 
      This document defines a single new OSPF Router Information LSA
      TLV, S-BFD Descriminator TLV, to the OSPF Router Information (RI)
      TLVs Registry. There shouldn't be any confusion with this IANA
      action.

(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.

      None.

(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.

      Not applicable.