The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS
draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-10-16
|
05 | Martin Thomson | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2012-10-08
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-10-05
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2012-10-05
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-10-05
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-10-05
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-10-05
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-10-05
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-09-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-09-13
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-09-12
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-09-12
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-09-12
|
05 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-09-12
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] TED is used before being defined (on p11) |
2012-09-12
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-09-12
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-09-12
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-09-11
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-09-10
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-09-09
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-09-06
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-09-06
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-09-05
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I have no problems with the publication of this document and only have the following comment. - The discussion of objective functions seems … [Ballot comment] I have no problems with the publication of this document and only have the following comment. - The discussion of objective functions seems incomplete. Section 4.1 talks about deriving an optimal end-to-end path based on an OF or set of OFs. However, in talking with one of the authors, it became clear that the same OF (or set of OFs) may not be applied across all domains given local policy within a domain and/or contractual arrangements between domains. I think it would be useful to add some discussion of these types of issues and the impact they will have on the optimality of the computed path. |
2012-09-05
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-08-31
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-08-31
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-09-13 |
2012-08-31
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-08-31
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
2012-08-31
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-08-31
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-08-31
|
05 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-08-28
|
05 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-05.txt |
2012-08-24
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2012-08-24
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-08-23
|
04 | Martin Thomson | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2012-08-16
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-08-16
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2012-08-16
|
04 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (The Application of the Path Computation … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS' as Informational RFC 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 2012-08-24. 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 Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS networks presents a problem because no single point of path computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture. Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used to derive an optimal path. This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between domains. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Last Call Requested from None |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Last call was requested |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Publication Requested from None |
2012-08-10
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-07-10
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD changed to Stewart Bryant from Adrian Farrel |
2012-07-05
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested? -> Informational. Why is this the proper type of RFC? -> Because it extends the architecture and … (1) What type of RFC is being requested? -> Informational. Why is this the proper type of RFC? -> Because it extends the architecture and does not specify any protocol. 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 Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS networks presents a problem because no single point of path computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture. Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used to derive an optimal path. This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between domains. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? -> No. For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? -> No. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? -> N/A. 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? -> No. If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? -> N/A. In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? -> N/A. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? -> Julien Meuric. Who is the Responsible Area Director? -> Stewart Bryant. (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 has good support, is clearly written and thus is ready for publication. (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. -> No concern. (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. -> The 4 identified authors have confirmed. (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 disclosure. (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? -> Good support; an I-D proposing corresponding protocol extensions exists. (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. -> OK. (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). -> No IANA action requested, consistently with the body of the document. (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. -> N/A. (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. |
2012-07-05
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Julien Meuric (julien.meuric@orange.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-07-05
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2012-07-05
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-07-05
|
04 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk |
2012-06-28
|
04 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04.txt |
2012-06-27
|
03 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt |
2012-05-10
|
02 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02.txt |
2012-03-11
|
01 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-01.txt |
2011-10-04
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-00.txt |