Switching Provider Edge (S-PE) Protection for MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-04

[Ballot comment]
I appreciate all the background given, it makes the text very clear.

I have one question:  Is it that easy?  The substantive part of this document is "the PW status signaling defined in RFC 6478 MUST be used…in place of LDP-based status signaling".  Do all the parts of Sections 6 and 7 of RFC 6870 just translate to the alternate signaling?  For example (this is the first thing that I found, nothing special about it), 6.2 (RFC6870) says that "a common Group ID in the PWid FEC element or a PW Grouping ID TLV in the Generalized PWid FEC element, as defined in [2], MAY be used to signal PWs in groups in order to minimize the number of LDP status messages that MUST be sent."  I found the Status TLV in RFC6478, but not these other ones — I may of course be missing the references..


I have other minor comments:

1.  Just a nit..  It's interesting how (in the Introduction) when presenting the optional mechanism the text says that it "MUST be identically provisioned in the PE endpoints".  However, then talking about the MTI mechanism (in Section 3. (Operational Considerations)), the text "just" says that "operational care must be taken so that the endpoint T-PEs are identically provisioned".  [To be fair, the same "low key" text is later included in the Appendix referring to the optional mechanism.]  The text itself is not a big deal to me..it just caught my attention the difference in treatment when for either mechanism to work both endpoints must be provisioned the same say.

2. Section 1. (Introduction)  Please expand PSN and put a reference in for "PSN tunnel protection", or at least make it clear that the protection you're referring to is what was described above (at least that's my guess).

3. Section 2:  s/in the place of LDP-based/in place of LDP-based

[Ballot comment]
Just total nit-level stuff here: unexpanded abbreviations that should be expanded.  Note to responsible AD: "OAM" should certainly be flagged in the RFC Editor's abbreviation list as not requiring expansion, and it's not so flagged.

-- Introduction --
PE, MPLS-TP, L2TP

-- Section 2 --
CE, AC (in fig 1)

-- Appendix A --
SDH, OTN, G-ACh

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (S-PE Protection for MPLS and MPLS-TP Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'S-PE Protection for MPLS and MPLS-TP Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires'
  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 2015-10-15. 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 MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, statically provisioned Single-
  Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via
  MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection.  With statically
  provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the
  MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and
  MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection.  However, static MS-PWs are not
  protected end-to-end against failure of one of the switching PEs
  (S-PEs) along the path of the MS-PW.  This document describes how to
  achieve this protection via redundant MS-PWs by updating the existing
  procedures in RFC 6870.  It also contains an optional approach based
  on MPLS-TP Linear Protection.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection/ballot/


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

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 draft is targetted at as Proposed Standard.
The draft describes a protocol action and makes a minor
update to a PS, so PS is the rightcorrect document  track.

(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
 
  In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, statically provisioned Single-
  Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via
  MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection.  With statically
  provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the
  MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and
  MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection.  However, static MS-PWs are not
  protected end-to-end against failure of one of the switching PEs
  (S-PEs) along the path of the MS-PW.  This document describes how to
  achieve this protection via redundant MS-PWs by updating the existing
  procedures in RFC 6870.  It also contains an optional approach based
  on MPLS-TP Linear Protection.

  This RFC updates RFC 6870.


Working Group Summary

  The was nothing of note in the WG process.

Document Quality

  A number of operators and vendors have expressed interest in this
  draft.

Personnel

  Stewart Bryant is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard 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.

  I read every word, reviewed the list comments and did a nits check.

  The is one nits error that should be picked up in IETF LC (failure
  to note the RFC that is being updated in the abstract).

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I have no 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.

(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.

I have 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.

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?

It is understood by the WG, although only a few have commented.

(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.

See above - there needs to be some text in teh Abstract
noting the RFC that is updated.

(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.

Yes, Yes (but see note about Abstract), I am sure they will fix it.


(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 IANA considerations.

(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