Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire Using LDP
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-04

[Ballot comment]
In response my discuss, a document to detail out security options was promised, but has not materialized as of yet.  While the added text for my discuss points out that MD5 isn't the best choice, there is no alternative or even a plan to follow from this document (a reference to the promised draft would have been helpful, but it doesn't exist yet).  As such, I am abstaining.  I do hope that document will be pursued and the routing ADs will ensure follow through.

[Ballot comment]
Here is Sarah's OPS DIR review. Her Why (Do I care?) comment resonates with me: I could not find the information.

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

I think the document is almost ready to go. I don't have technical issue with the content, but I think the document reads in parts like several authors cut/paste/contributed, and the document doesn't flow well in spots. Perhaps this is a personal choice, but I believe that documents that read with some amount of approachability with respect to all interested readers, and not just hard core whatever-the-protocol-is-fanatics, benefits our community for the better. Last, maybe it's the product manager in me, and not the development engineer, but why do I care? Is this just to add LDP as another mechanism for establishing the PW? Is there some deficit that's being addressed by LDP that existing mechanisms don't solve? This isn't addressed in a way that resonates in the document, for me.
Last, while super picky, the acronym "PSN" was used in the abstract before being properly introduced. This was mostly made more noticeable by the fact that the rest of the draft does a fantastic job of introducing the terms before using the acronym.

[Ballot discuss]
* Section 7.3. mLDP Opaque Value Element TLV Type

From my reading of RFC6388, the "Value" in the TLV type is interpreted based on the type and this document does not seem to specify what goes into the value.

Additionally, the document requests the type "0x3" but it looks like that type has been allocated already to "Transit IPv4 Source TLV type" as per

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ldp-namespaces.xhtml#ldp-namespaces-11

[Ballot comment]
* I think there is a typo in Figure 2.

The "AII Type" field should be labeled "SAII Type" instead?

* Why is the PW type referencing RFC4447 when the rest of the document refers solely to RFC4447bis? Is this intentional or a mistake?

"* PW Type: 15 bits representation of PW type as specified in [RFC4447]."

* The term "PMSI Tunnel info" is used without being defined and is required to calculate the length. I am guessing "PMSI Tunnel info" means the combination of PMSI Tunnel Type, Length and Transport LSP ID. If this is so, please make it explicit and define. If not, clarify.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Kathleen about the MD5 issue. I recognize it's not unique to this document, but eventually we do need to deal with it.

  intended for bidirectional service whereas the latter is intended for
  both unidirectional, and optionally bidirectional service.
  Requirements for P2MP PW are described in [RFC7338]. P2MP PW can be

This is quite hard to read because P2MP and P2P are close. Perhaps replace "former" and "latter" with names.

  constructed as either Single Segment (P2MP SS-PW) or Multi Segment
  (P2MP MS-PW) Pseudowires as mentioned in [RFC7338]. P2MP MS-PW is
  outside the scope of this document. A reference model or a P2MP PW is

Nit: you have singular/plural disagreement


  Parameters field in octets. If this value is 0, then it references
  all PWs using the specified grouping ID. In this case, there are
  neither other FEC element fields (AGI, SAII, etc.) present, nor any

Which grouping ID? It's not clear to me what field this corresponds to.

[Ballot comment]

  intended for bidirectional service whereas the latter is intended for
  both unidirectional, and optionally bidirectional service.
  Requirements for P2MP PW are described in [RFC7338]. P2MP PW can be
This is quite hard to read because P2MP and P2P are close. Perhaps replace "former" and "latter" with names.

  constructed as either Single Segment (P2MP SS-PW) or Multi Segment
  (P2MP MS-PW) Pseudowires as mentioned in [RFC7338]. P2MP MS-PW is
  outside the scope of this document. A reference model or a P2MP PW is

Nit: you have singular/plural disagreement


  Parameters field in octets. If this value is 0, then it references
  all PWs using the specified grouping ID. In this case, there are
  neither other FEC element fields (AGI, SAII, etc.) present, nor any

Which grouping ID? It's not clear to me what field this corresponds to.

[Ballot discuss]
I haven't sen a response to the SecDir review, so please point me to one if there has been a response.  I fully agree with Tero that MD5 is not adequate and hasn't been for some time.  What is the plan to rectify this and deprecate use of the TCP MD5 signature for LDP? 
RFC8077, says that LDP MD5 authentication key option as described in the section 2.9 of RFC5036 MUST be implemented.  I asked on my ballot for RFC8077 when a deprecation process would start in support of Stephen's abstain and would like an update on that process.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ga2pIVcGw9WEgBX5MXA9MCmSs_s

[Ballot comment]
Please check idnits. It flags some issues that should be resolved, especially 2119 language issues.

The security considerations seem inadequate. I'm no expert here, but it seems like adding p2mp support in addition to p2p support has a good chance of creating some new considerations. If it really doesn't, it would be helpful to see arguments to that effect.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has questions about two of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete.

First, in the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space registry on the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

For 0x82 and 0x83 the document calls them new registrations, but they've already been made.

IANA Question --> Is this document replacing all of the current references for those registrations; if it is replacing all of the current references, the document needs to include the values for the Label Advertisement Discipline field for those registrations.

Second, in the TLV Type Name Space registry also on the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: P2MP PW Capability TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the author has requested a value of 0x0703 for this TLV Type.

Third, in the LDP MP Opaque Value Element basic type regsitry on the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

a single, new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: L2VPN-MCAST application TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the author has requested a value of 3 for this Type, but the next available value is actually 13.

Fourth, in the Pseudowire Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type Registry on the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) regsitry page located at:

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

Parameter: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
ID Length:
Description: Selective Tree Interface Parameter
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the author requests TLV Type value 0x1b for this registration.

IANA Question --> What should be the entry for "ID Length" for this registration?

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Fifth, in the P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types registry on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry page located at:

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

the entry for value 0xFF was previously marked "Reserved." It should now be changed to the following:

Value: 0xFF
Meaning: wildcard transport tunnel type
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]


The IANA Services Operator understands that these five actions are the only ones 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.

Please note that specific values cannot be reserved. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Stewart Bryant , draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services
WG (pals) to consider the following document: - 'Signaling Root-Initiated
Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP'
  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 2017-08-24. 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


  This document specifies a mechanism to signal Point-to-Multipoint
  (P2MP) Pseudowires (PW) tree using LDP. Such a mechanism is suitable
  for any Layer 2 VPN service requiring P2MP connectivity over an IP or
  MPLS enabled PSN. A P2MP PW established via the proposed mechanism is
  root initiated. This document updates RFC7385 by re-assigning
  reserved value 0xFF to be the wildcard transport tunnel type.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw/ballot/


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

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)?

Proposed Standard.

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

It defines protocols and may well be referenced by external standards bodies.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

(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 a mechanism to signal Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
Pseudowires (PW) tree using LDP. Such a mechanism is suitable for any Layer 2
VPN service requiring P2MP connectivity over an IP or MPLS enabled PSN.
A P2MP PW established via the proposed mechanism is root initiated. This
document updates RFC7385 by re-assigning reserved value 0xFF to be the
wildcard transport tunnel type.

Working Group Summary

The Working Group and its predecessor (PWE3) took a long time
to finish the document. There was not much comment on it in
WGLC. It is none-the-less a useful document which should be
published as part of completing the IETF work on "classical"
pseudowires.

Document Quality

This is a well written document that clearly explains how to
signal Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP.

Personnel

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

Stewart Bryant is the document shepherd, and Deborah Brungard
is the responsible AD.

(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 the document line by line and gave feedback to the editors which
they incorporated into the text.

(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, they do not.

(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 am quite comfortable with the document.

(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 they have.

(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 was disclosed against this document or any of those
in the replaced by sequence.

(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 agrees with the text, but have become less vocal in recent
years. I am satisfied that there is adequate consensus to publish.

(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 one has threatened to appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are a number of easy to fix nits. They don't impact the readability.
It is best to continue with the review process and fix them next time
the draft is revised.

(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 they have.

(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?

They are all 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.

There are none.

(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.

It performs an update to RFC7385 by allocating a parameter previously
reserved by that RFC. The update is noted on the front page. It is
also noted in the Abstract but not the Introduction. It is also called
up in the IANA section.

The update is fairly minor.

(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.

I have checked the IANA considerations and they look correct and appropriate.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified.

Yes they have.

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).

Not applicable.


(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.

There are no such registries.

(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.

There are no content written in a formal language.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Yuji Kamite" , "Luca Martini" , "Lizhong Jin" , "Siva Sivabalan" , "Gianni Vecchio" , "Sami Boutros" , pals-chairs@ietf.org, "Maciek Konstantynowicz"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Yuji Kamite" , "Luca Martini" , "Lizhong Jin" , "Siva Sivabalan" , "Gianni Vecchio" , "Sami Boutros" , pals-chairs@ietf.org, "Maciek Konstantynowicz"