Pseudowire Redundancy on the Switching Provider Edge (S-PE)
draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-02-26
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-02-19
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-02-08
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-12-14
|
03 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2015-12-02
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-12-02
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-12-02
|
03 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-12-02
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2015-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-12-01
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-11-24
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-11-15
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-11-15
|
03 | Jie Dong | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-11-15
|
03 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-03.txt |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises in the Gen-ART review are very valid questions. I'm raising one of those … [Ballot discuss] From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises in the Gen-ART review are very valid questions. I'm raising one of those items in this Discuss. The particular item that I’m interested in is the text in Section 3.2, which seems like explaining what happens in an example, but it also uses normative language and keywords to say what various entities should do. Yet, the example is just one example. Is there a need to lift the keyword statements out of this paragraph and generalise them to make sure that the specification is about the general case and not about the example? Alternatively, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the keyword statements. |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] (I also agree with Robert that the document is fairly hard to read. This isn’t the first document in the IETF to be … [Ballot comment] (I also agree with Robert that the document is fairly hard to read. This isn’t the first document in the IETF to be like that, and I didn’t feel that this issue is discuss-worthy.) |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-10-21
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-10-21
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Linda Dunbar provided the opsdir review. |
2015-10-21
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-10-20
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-10-20
|
02 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Just some very minor nits: - section 1, 2nd paragraph: s/provide/providing - section 3 and subsections: Several occurrences of "Active Preferential Forwarding status … [Ballot comment] Just some very minor nits: - section 1, 2nd paragraph: s/provide/providing - section 3 and subsections: Several occurrences of "Active Preferential Forwarding status bit" need a leading "the". |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] No objection regarding the publication of the document. However, based on Linda Dunbar's OPS DIR review, and the Jimmy's answer, a new revision … [Ballot comment] No objection regarding the publication of the document. However, based on Linda Dunbar's OPS DIR review, and the Jimmy's answer, a new revision is needed with the agreed changed (see the OPS DIR list for the details) |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Just total nit-level stuff here: unexpanded abbreviations that should be expanded. -- Abstract -- PE, T-PE (Because the abstract has to stand alone.) … [Ballot comment] Just total nit-level stuff here: unexpanded abbreviations that should be expanded. -- Abstract -- PE, T-PE (Because the abstract has to stand alone.) -- Section 2.1 -- CE -- Section 3.1 -- AC -- Section 4 -- CC, VCCV |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] It is not clear that the solution applies to both static and dynamic MS-PWs. The Introduction talks about reusing the signaling in RFC6870 … |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.all@ietf.org |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. |
2015-10-19
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-10-22 |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.ad@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe@ietf.org, matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com to (None) |
2015-10-09
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2015-10-09
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2015-10-08
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-10-08
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-10-08
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2015-10-08
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2015-10-05
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02, 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. |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: He Jia. |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Pseudowire Redundancy on S-PE) to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Pseudowire Redundancy on S-PE) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services WG (pals) to consider the following document: - 'Pseudowire Redundancy on S-PE' 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 2015-10-19. 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 describes Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) protection scenarios in which the pseudowire redundancy is provided on the Switching-PE (S-PE). Operations of the S-PEs which provide PW redundancy are specified in this document. Signaling of the preferential forwarding status as defined in RFC 6870 is reused. This document does not require any change to the T-PEs of MS-PW. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1911/ |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-09-25
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2015-09-25
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2015-09-23
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | Document Shepherd Write-Up draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is … Document Shepherd Write-Up draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt (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? Standards Track. This is appropriate since the draft defines new procedures for supporting pseudowire redundancy for multi-segment pseudowires at a switching provider edge (S-PE). The status is indicated in the draft header on the first page. (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 describes Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) protection scenarios in which the pseudowire redundancy is provided on the Switching-PE (S-PE). Operations of the S-PEs which provide PW redundancy are specified in this document. Signaling of the preferential forwarding status as defined in [RFC 6870] is reused. This document does not require any change to the T-PEs of MS-PW. Working Group Summary: There was nothing particularly unusual in the progress of the draft. The document originated in the PWE3 working group and moved to the PALS working group when PWE3 was concluded in November 2014. The primary discussion in PWE3 was around clarification of the new procedures at the S-PE. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of PW redundancy, based on RFC6718 and RFC6870. This document reuses the procedures in those RFCs in the context of an S-PE. The document has also been widely reviewed by the original authors and contributors to those RFCs. I do not have any concerns with the quality of the document. Personnel: The Document Shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com) The Responsible Area Director is Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) (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 have reviewed the document several times during its development. The document is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has been reviewed many times by the PWE3 and PALs WGs. (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. There are no parts of the draft that require further review or the help of a MIB doctor. (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 specific 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? An IPR poll was conducted in the PALs list. Each author responded that they were not aware of any relevant IPR. There were no other responses. (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 (1911) raised in November 2012 against an early version of the draft. There was no discussion in the WG related to this. (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? I believe the draft represents working group consensus. The document has been reviewed many times by the PWE3 and PALs WGs and received a number of WG last call comments in PALS which were addressed by the authors. There was considerable support shown for the draft during WG last call. (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.) None indicated. (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. The document passes ID Nits. There are no relevant warnings. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document does not require any further formal review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. The references section is split into Normative and Informative sections. These are appropriate. (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. All normative references are to published 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 no downward normative references. (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. This document does not make any changes to the status of existing RFCs. (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 section is consistent with the body of the document. There are no IANA requests, since this document simply reuses an existing code point (the PW Preferential Forwarding Status Bit). (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 new IANA 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 sections written in a formal language that would require further checks. |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Andy Malis | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.ad@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe@ietf.org, matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com from "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> |
2015-08-04
|
01 | Matthew Bocci | Changed document writeup |
2015-08-04
|
02 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt |
2015-07-27
|
01 | Andy Malis | Revised draft needed as a result of the Shepherd's review. |
2015-07-27
|
01 | Andy Malis | Tags Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2015-07-27
|
01 | Andy Malis | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2015-05-04
|
01 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-01.txt |
2015-01-27
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | Notification list changed to "Matthew Bocci" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> |
2015-01-27
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci |
2015-01-27
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | PWE3 to PALS transition |
2015-01-27
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | This document now replaces draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-spe instead of None |
2015-01-27
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-12-22
|
00 | Jie Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-00.txt |