Multi-Chassis Passive Optical Network (MC-PON) Protection in MPLS
draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-05

[Ballot comment]
I was surprised by this text in the Abstract,

  MPLS is being deployed deeper into operator networks, often to or
  past the access network node.
 
because I don't think what this is saying, matches text like this in the Introduction,

  Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is being extended to the edge
  of operator networks, as is described in the the Multi-Segment
  Pseudowires with Passive Optical Network (PON) access use case
  [RFC6456].

Is it "to the edge", or "past the access network node"? But if there's no reason to use a different description, you might consider using the same description in both places.

Of course, you folks are the experts on how MPLS is deployed ... and maybe I'm just confused by which direction you mean when you say "deeper"!

I am also interested in resolution of Stephen's Discuss.

[Ballot discuss]
I have a couple of minor blocking points I would like to discuss, but they should be easy to fix:

1) In 2.1.1 and other sub-sections: should sub-TLV format be defined now, even though you don't specify any sub-TLV? (or is it already specified in another document?) Should recipients ignore unrecognized sub-TLVs or do something else? Please clarify.

2) In 2.1.3: what is "system priority"? This is not explained. Please either add an explanation or a reference to a document that defines it.

[Ballot discuss]

Is this extension to ICCP really compatible with section
10 of RFC7275?  RFC7275 says "It ought not be deployed on
or over the public Internet.  ICCP is not intended to be
applicable when the Redundancy Group spans PEs in
different administrative domains" whereas this draft only
refers to the "well-managed" stuff and says nothing about
multiple domains, and this draft also refers to public
contexts such as telephone poles. Can you justify for me
how using ICCP here is safe? (It may well be, but I'm
entirely unsure, probably mostly due to my ignorance of
PON deployments.)

The same point was made in the secdir review [1] which
did get a response. Sadly, I didn't get how the response
answered the question.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06762.html

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04.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 ICC RG Parameter Types subregistry of the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

Four new parameter types are to be registered as follows:

Type: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: PON Connect TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: PON Disconnect TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: PON Configuration TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: PON State TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors request that these parameter types have consecutive 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. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, agmalis@gmail.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, "Andrew G. Malis"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Multi-chassis Passive Optical Network (PON) Protection in MPLS) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'Multi-chassis Passive Optical Network (PON) Protection in MPLS'
  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 2016-09-06. 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


  MPLS is being deployed deeper into operator networks, often to or
  past the access network node. Separately network access nodes such
  as Passive Optical Network (PON) Optical Line Terminations (OLTs)
  have evolved to support first-mile access protection, where one or
  more physical OLTs provide first-mile diversity to the customer edge.
  Multi-homing support is needed on the MPLS-enabled PON OLT to
  provide resiliency for provided services.  This document describes
  the multi-chassis PON protection architecture in MPLS and also
  specifies the Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) extension
  to support it.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon/ballot/

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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2371/

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?

Proposed Standard. The draft defines extensions to an existing IETF protocol.

(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:

  MPLS is being deployed deeper into operator networks, often to or
  past the access network node. Separately network access nodes such
  as Passive Optical Network (PON) Optical Line Terminations (OLTs)
  have evolved to support first-mile access protection, where one or
  more physical OLTs provide first-mile diversity to the customer edge.
  Multi-homing support is needed on the MPLS-enabled PON OLT to
  provide resiliency for provided services.  This document describes
  the multi-chassis PON protection architecture in MPLS and also
  specifies the Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) extension
  to support it.

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 WG process was smooth.

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?

Four service providers were document authors or significant contributors, driving the work. At least one vendor is in the process of planning an implementation for use in mobile backhaul networks.

Personnel:

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

Andy Malis, Deborah Brungard

(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 shepherd reviewed the draft and provided comments, which have been incorporated into the draft.

(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.

N/A

(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 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?

Yes.

(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 one IPR declaration, there were no objections or comments from the WG participants.

(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 WG supports the document, a number of people supported WG LC. In addition, the co-editor of Broadband Forum Working Text 331 (PON-based Mobile Backhaul) indicated that this draft provides a useful solution for use by the BBF document.

(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.

None.

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

N/A

(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).

The IANA considerations are pretty simple, there is a request for four new allocations in an existing registry. This registry has an "IETF Review" range that IANA can use for these allocations.

(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.

N/A