OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-03-02
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-02-25
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-02-17
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-01-14
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-01-13
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-01-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-01-12
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-01-12
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-01-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-01-12
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-01-09
|
11 | John Drake | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-01-09
|
11 | John Drake | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-11.txt |
2015-01-08
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ólafur Guðmundsson. |
2015-01-08
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-01-08
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] From an OPS point of view, I'm mainly interested in what is out of scope, as written in the writeup: "There has been … [Ballot comment] From an OPS point of view, I'm mainly interested in what is out of scope, as written in the writeup: "There has been much discusson as to how these metrics would be collected and how they will be used. These topics were deemed to to be out of scope". So I'll wait for a companion document. I agree with Alissa and Stephen that the following paragraph is confusing: "While this document does not specify how the performance information should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus, queuing delays and/or loss SHOULD NOT be included in any dynamic delay measurement." |
2015-01-08
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Thank you for doing this work. It is very important and I can clearly see the use cases. I do have some comments … [Ballot comment] Thank you for doing this work. It is very important and I can clearly see the use cases. I do have some comments though. I think it would be useful to specify explicitly what the IEEE floating point number format variant is being used. I assume binary32. (Also noted in the Gen-ART review.) I am a bit surprised by the A bit design. Would it be useful to add some rationale for why this approach has been taken? As I read the document I find it difficult to understand why the bit carries extra value for the receiver. It does signal an exceptional condition, but at the same time, any real action (e.g., Step B in Section 3) seems to be something that should be based on the calculation of the actual bandwidths and delays rather than the flag itself. Or did I misunderstand this? Also, it would be useful to specify what information must be understood in the network for the A bit usage. Do all nodes have to the same understanding of the threshold throughout the network? Or just the sending node? Finally, I would have preferred to see some defaults for the various configurable values, and some discussion of the requirements for the values. Again, do the measurement period for instance have to be aligned across a network, or not? A section on management considerations might be appropriate. |
2015-01-07
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-01-06
|
10 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-01-06
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] = Section 1 = "While this document does not specify how the performance information should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD … [Ballot comment] = Section 1 = "While this document does not specify how the performance information should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus, queuing delays and/or loss SHOULD NOT be included in any dynamic delay measurement." Agree with Stephen's comment here -- this is confusing. I'm not sure normative language makes a whole lot of sense here at all if "the measurement" means "the quantity you actually measure" as opposed to "the quantity that you report after measuring." Also, how would loss be reported in a delay measurement? (I can imagine ways, but they seem contrived.) = Section 4.2.7 = "Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of an offset value (in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value to advertise operator specific delay constraints." Do I understand correctly that there is no way specified to communicate this offset value? If this is a matter for local configuration, it seems a bit odd to use normative language and describe it in the definition of the sub-TLV. = Section 4.4.5 = "When set to a value of all 1s (2^24 - 1), the link packet loss has not been measured." I noted that in the case of delay, the way to signal that delay has not been measured is to not send or withdraw the sub-TLV, whereas for loss it is to send a specific value. Why do this differently for different measurements? = Section 7 = I agree with Barry's comments here. |
2015-01-06
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-01-06
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-01-06
|
10 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I agree with Stephen that the specified use cases seem to warrant a stronger recommendation to provide authentication and confidentiality. The tools are … [Ballot comment] I agree with Stephen that the specified use cases seem to warrant a stronger recommendation to provide authentication and confidentiality. The tools are available, so why are they not being recommended in this instance? |
2015-01-06
|
10 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-01-05
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] These are mainly nits or questions, other than the first. That would have been a discuss if I knew of a specific threat, … [Ballot comment] These are mainly nits or questions, other than the first. That would have been a discuss if I knew of a specific threat, but since this is just a general concern, it's not a discuss. I'd appreciate a bit of a chat about it though. - I'd have thought that these TLVs would be sent more often than others, and that (if enormous amounts of money are in play) then use of OSPF authentication might be more likely needed (or some equivalent security mechanisms). I'd even speculate that if enormous amounts of money are in play, then confidentiality may become a requirement (since if I can observe say A bit settings then that might give me insight into traffic levels - sort of a lights burning at night in central bank implies interest-rate change attack). Can you say why none of that needs to be mentioned at all? Was any of that considered by the WG? (Can you send a relevant link to the archive?) - intro: "extremely large amounts of money" aren't usually explicit motivations for protocol features and I hope that that continues to be the case. I'd encourage you to remove that phrase. Similarly, "faster" is a fine requirement but "fast than the competition" is not, so a bit more wordsmithing might be good. (Those are, I think, defensible points as we ought not over-specialise our requirements, but to be honest I'd also be happier if protocol development was not explicitly motivated soley by increasing already-enormous amounts of money.) - intro: saying the "measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load" is odd. Clearly the delay experienced can vary based on the load, so I'm not sure what you're saying. And nor is it clear why this is a SHOULD NOT, as opposed to a MUST NOT. Maybe you need to explain that some more? - section 3: Doesn't the A bit definition assume that both senders and receivers know the thresholds (or enough about those). That seems a bit odd to me, but I expect you've thought it through. Same thing with the averaging period I guess (though section 7 does specify a 30s default as a SHOULD). Or am I missing that one could calculate those from the various TLVs that are defined? (I think I'm also not understanding bullet point 4 in section 5 which may be related.) - section 3: I don't get what "cannot be used for fail-over purposes" means. I think you mean "ought not" since a receiver can do what they want in any case. - The security considerations of RFC 3630, from 2003, is 11 lines long. Has nothing affected OSPF security in the last decade+ that would be worth noting here? - In one response to the secdir review, [1] path shortening attacks were mentioned - I'm not clear myself if that's a deal here, but is text on that needed? Some text that was suggested is "users of the lsas described in this document should be aware of how they might be used in path shortening and other routing attacks." [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05354.html |
2015-01-05
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot comment text updated for Stephen Farrell |
2015-01-05
|
10 | John Drake | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-01-05
|
10 | John Drake | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-10.txt |
2015-01-04
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Menachem Dodge. |
2015-01-03
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] These are mainly nits or questions, other than the first. That would have been a discuss if I knew of a specific threat, … [Ballot comment] These are mainly nits or questions, other than the first. That would have been a discuss if I knew of a specific threat, but since this is just a general concern, it's not a discuss. I'd appreciate a bit of a chat about it though. - I'd have thought that these TLVs would be sent more often than others, and that (if enormous amounts of money are in play) then use of OSPF authentication might be more likely needed (or some equivalent security mechanisms). I'd even speculate that if enormous amounts of money are in play, then confidentiality may become a requirement (since if I can observe say A bit settings then that might give me insight into traffic levels - sort of a lights burning at night in central bank implies interest-rate change attack). Can you say why none of that needs to be mentioned at all? Was any of that considered by the WG? (Can you send a relevant link to the archive?) - intro: "extremely large amounts of money" aren't usually explicit motivations for protocol features and I hope that that continues to be the case. I'd encourage you to remove that phrase. Similarly, "faster" is a fine requirement but "fast than the competition" is not, so a bit more wordsmithing might be good. (Those are, I think, defensible points as we ought not over-specialise our requirements, but to be honest I'd also be happier if protocol development was not explicitly motivated soley by increasing already-enormous amounts of money.) - intro: saying the "measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load" is odd. Clearly the delay experienced can vary based on the load, so I'm not sure what you're saying. And nor is it clear why this is a SHOULD NOT, as opposed to a MUST NOT. Maybe you need to explain that some more? - section 3: Doesn't the A bit definition assume that both senders and receivers know the thresholds (or enough about those). That seems a bit odd to me, but I expect you've thought it through. Same thing with the averaging period I guess (though section 7 does specify a 30s default as a SHOULD). Or am I missing that one could calculate those from the various TLVs that are defined? (I think I'm also not understanding bullet point 4 in section 5 which may be related.) - section 3: I don't get what "cannot be used for fail-over purposes" means. I think you mean "ought not" since a receiver can do what they want in any case. - The security considerations of RFC 3630, from 2003, is 11 lines long. Has nothing affected OSPF security in the last decade+ that would be worth noting here? - In one response to the secdir review, [1] path shortening attacks were mentioned - I'm not clear myself if that's a deal here, but is text on that needed? [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05354.html |
2015-01-03
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-01-02
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-12-30
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-12-29
|
09 | Martin Thomson | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2014-12-29
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-12-29
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-12-29
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] A couple of minor, non-blocking comments, just looking for a little clarification: -- Section 7 -- I can't imagine that the "SHOULD" in … [Ballot comment] A couple of minor, non-blocking comments, just looking for a little clarification: -- Section 7 -- I can't imagine that the "SHOULD" in the first paragraph is an appropriate 2119 key word: no one can tell whether or not care was taken, so this can't be a protocol issue. Please just say "Therefore it is important to set these values carefully." For the remaining "SHOULD"s, "SHOULD NOT", and "RECOMMENDED" in this section: remembering that "SHOULD" means that "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course," how can someone reading this understand and weigh those implications? I can't: I have no idea why these recommendations are being made, and what the implications are of making different choices. Can you help me here? Or are these just recommended values, in the lower-case, plain English sense? |
2014-12-29
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-12-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-12-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2014-12-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-12-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-12-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-01-08 |
2014-12-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-12-27
|
09 | John Drake | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-12-27
|
09 | John Drake | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09.txt |
2014-12-24
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-12-17
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-12-17
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08. 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-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands that upon approval of this document, there is a single action which needs to be completed. In the Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2) sub-registry of the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ seven new type codes per sub-TLV will be defined as follows: Type: [ TDB-at-registration ] Description: Unidirectional Link Delay Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: [ TDB-at-registration ] Description: Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: [ TDB-at-registration ] Description: Unidirectional Delay Variation Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: [ TDB-at-registration ] Description: Unidirectional Link Loss Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: [ TDB-at-registration ] Description: Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: [ TDB-at-registration ] Description: Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: [ TDB-at-registration ] Description: Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] 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. |
2014-12-15
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Menachem Dodge |
2014-12-15
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Menachem Dodge |
2014-12-11
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-12-11
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-12-11
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2014-12-11
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-12-10
|
08 | 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: (OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions' 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 2014-12-24. 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 In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data path selection as other metrics. This document describes extensions to RFC 3630 'Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2' such that network performance information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2442/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2199/ |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | AD review ======== Authors, Thanks for your work on this document. I am acting as "responsible" AD as Alia (the usual AD for OSPF) is … AD review ======== Authors, Thanks for your work on this document. I am acting as "responsible" AD as Alia (the usual AD for OSPF) is a co-author. I've done my usual review on receiving the publication request. I see a few small issues to attend to, but these do not need to hold up the IETF last call. I will start that last call and submit my comments as last call comments that you can handle along with any other comments you receive. Thanks, Adrian === Please look for places where you have "proposed" something and change that to "defined". --- It would be good to include a reference for encoding floating point integers. The usual is (I think)... IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8). --- Section 4.2.5 Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of a static (non dynamic) offset value (in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value, to facilitate the communication of operator specific delay constraints. On the third reading I got it! I'm slow (I have a high delay :-) The point here is that the measured value and the static value are added together and the sum is transmitted in this field. I'd suggest... Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of a static (non dynamic) offset value (in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value before encoding into this TLV, to facilitate the communication of operator specific delay constraints. Similarly in 4.2.6. --- 4.2.7 appears out of sequence. But since it repeats the content of 4.2.4 I suggest you merge them and talk about the plurality of fields. --- Section 7 "Sections 6 and 7 provide" should be 5 and 6. --- Section 10 "As per (RFC3630), unrecognized TLVs should be silently ignored" There has been confusion about what 3630 means by "silently ignored". In particular, some enthusiastic implementations thought this meant the TLVs should be stripped from the LSA before it is propagated. I think it is worth the few words to explicitly state that this is not the case. --- Section 13 RFC 4203 is used in a normative way, please move it to the other section. |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-12-10
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-12-05
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-12-05
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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 Traffic Engineering to include delay, loss, and current bandwidth utilization metric that can be taken into account when performing traffic engineering. Working Group Summary: There has been much discusson as to how these metrics would be collected and how they will be used. These topics were deemed to to be out of scope. There was also concern for potential overhead of collecting and flooding these metrics. In response, the draft contains guidance as to how often the measurements should be collected and flooded. Additionally, the draft now recommends configuration to control measurement usage and the thresholds for advertisement. Finally, the draft was updated to include applicability to Advanced Multipath links. It should be noted that, consistent with the long-held IESG policy, there is a partner I-D for extensions to IS-IS (draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions) Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for a little under two years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more than six months. Personnel: Acee Lindem 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 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. Yes. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions There wasn't any discussion. IPR on drafts is quite common. (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. (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. (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 seven new OSPF Traffic Engineering sub-TLVs that are applicable to the OSPF TE Link TLV. (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. |
2014-12-05
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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 Traffic Engineering to include delay, loss, and current bandwidth utilization metric that can be taken into account when performing traffic engineering. Working Group Summary: There has been much discusson as to how these metrics would be collected and how they will be used. These topics were deemed to to be out of scope. There was also concern for potential overhead of collecting and flooding these metrics. In response, the draft contains guidance as to how often the measurements should be collected and flooded. Additionally, the draft now recommends configuration to control measurement usage and the thresholds for advertisement. Finally, the draft was updated to include applicability to Advanced Multipath links. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for a little under two years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more than six months. Personnel: Acee Lindem 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 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. Yes. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions There wasn't any discussion. IPR on drafts is quite common. (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. (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. (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 seven new OSPF Traffic Engineering sub-TLVs that are applicable to the OSPF TE Link TLV. (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. |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Alia Atlas | Shepherding AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-12-04
|
08 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-ospf-te-metric-extensions/ |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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 Traffic Engineering to include delay, loss, and current bandwidth utilization metric that can be taken into account when performing traffic engineering. Working Group Summary: There has been much discusson as to how these metrics would be collected and how they will be used. These topics were deemed to to be out of scope. There was also concern for potential overhead of collecting and flooding these metrics. In response, the draft contains guidance as to how often the measurements should be collected and flooded. Additionally, the draft now recommends configuration to control measurement usage and the thresholds for advertisement. Finally, the draft was updated to include applicability to Advanced Multipath links. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for a little under two years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more than six months. 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. Yes. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions There wasn't any discussion. IPR on drafts is quite common. (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. (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. (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 seven new OSPF Traffic Engineering sub-TLVs that are applicable to the OSPF TE Link TLV. (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. |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Changed document writeup |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to "Acee Lindem" <acee@cisco.com> |
2014-12-04
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem |
2014-12-01
|
08 | John Drake | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt |
2014-11-11
|
07 | John Drake | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-07.txt |
2014-09-26
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-06 and draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-03 | |
2014-09-12
|
06 | John Drake | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-06.txt |
2013-12-05
|
05 | Spencer Giacalone | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-05.txt |
2013-09-17
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-04 | |
2013-06-03
|
04 | Spencer Giacalone | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-04.txt |
2013-02-25
|
03 | Spencer Giacalone | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-03.txt |
2012-12-19
|
02 | Spencer Giacalone | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-02.txt |
2012-05-18
|
01 | Spencer Giacalone | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-01.txt |
2011-11-01
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-00.txt |