Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-09-18
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-08-11
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-08-02
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2017-07-14
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2017-06-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-06-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2017-06-27
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2017-06-23
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2017-04-21
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2017-03-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2017-03-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2017-03-28
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-03-27
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2017-03-27
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-03-27
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-03-27
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-03-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-03-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2017-03-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-03-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-03-27
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2017-03-27
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-03-27
|
10 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10.txt |
2017-03-27
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-27
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Edward Crabbe , Jan Medved , Dhruv Dhody , Xian Zhang , Ina Minei , pce-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Edward Crabbe , Jan Medved , Dhruv Dhody , Xian Zhang , Ina Minei , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Robert Varga |
2017-03-27
|
10 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-16
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-03-16
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I generally agree with the secdir review. TCP/AO is sadly fictional, so please don't let's pretend it's usable to help here. Just recommend … [Ballot comment] I generally agree with the secdir review. TCP/AO is sadly fictional, so please don't let's pretend it's usable to help here. Just recommend TLS. (And add BCP195 too please.) |
2017-03-16
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2017-03-16
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2017-03-15
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-03-15
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2017-03-15
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I only had time to skim this draft, but have no objections. Thanks for your work on it. |
2017-03-15
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-03-15
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-03-15
|
09 | Daniel Franke | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Daniel Franke. Sent review to list. |
2017-03-14
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-03-14
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-03-14
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-03-13
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] (1) The Speaker Entity Identifier concerns me a lot because of the spoofing vector it introduces, and because I don't think the uniqueness … [Ballot comment] (1) The Speaker Entity Identifier concerns me a lot because of the spoofing vector it introduces, and because I don't think the uniqueness is strongly specified. I understand that the risk of spoofing is limited to the State Timeout Interval, but that is a long time: at least 30 sec by default! It looks like the main use case is to avoid state synchronization after an IP address change -- are there other? (2) By making TCP-AO/TLS "RECOMMENDED", this document is not in line with RFC5440, where only TCP-MD5 is mandatory. I don't think the intent of this document is to Update RFC5440, is it? Also, why would the recommendations for this extension be different than those in draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (which doesn't go beyond what RFC5440 mentions)? If you do keep the current recommendation, then draft-ietf-pce-pceps should be a Normative reference. |
2017-03-13
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-03-07
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-03-07
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2017-03-07
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-03-07
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-03-07
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-03-02
|
09 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. |
2017-02-28
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-02-28
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt |
2017-02-28
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-28
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Edward Crabbe , Jan Medved , Dhruv Dhody , Xian Zhang , Ina Minei , Robert Varga |
2017-02-28
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-28
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-02-27
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Adrian Farrel. |
2017-02-23
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-02-23
|
08 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. We understand that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document: ietf-pce-stateful-pce. First, in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values subregistry of the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ two new registrations will be made as follows: Error-Type Meaning Reference -------------+------------------------------+---------------------------- 6 Mandatory Object missing [RFC5440] Error-Value= TBD(suggested [ RFC-to-be ] value 12): LSP-DB-VERSION TLV missing 20 LSP State synchronization [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] error Error-Value= TBD(suggested [ RFC-to-be ] value 2): LSP Database version mismatch. Error-Value=TBD(suggested [ RFC-to-be ] value 3): The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV Missing when state synchronization avoidance is enabled. Error-Value=TBD(suggested [ RFC-to-be ] value 4): Attempt to trigger a synchronization when the PCE triggered synchronization capability has not been advertised. Error-Value=TBD(suggested [ RFC-to-be ] value 6): No sufficient LSP change information for incremental LSP state synchronization. Error-Value=TBD(suggested [ RFC-to-be ] value 7): Received an invalid LSP DB Version Number Second, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators subregistry also in the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ two new registrations will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: LSP-DB-VERSION Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] We note that the authors have suggested the values 23 and 24 for these registrations. Third, the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is to be defined in another draft[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and, upon approval of that draft, a registry is requested to be created to manage the flags in the TLV. The current draft requests new registrations in the registry created upon approval of the other draft. Bit Description Reference TBD(suggested value 26) TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC [ RFC-to-be ] TBD(suggested value 27) DELTA-LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY [ RFC-to-be ] TBD(suggested value 28) TRIGGERED-RESYNC [ RFC-to-be ] TBD(suggested value 30) INCLUDE-DB-VERSION [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Services Operator understands that these three 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2017-02-19
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
2017-02-19
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Franke |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Franke |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Stefan Winter |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Stefan Winter |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations@ietf.org, db3546@att.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations@ietf.org, db3546@att.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE' 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 2017-02-28. 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 A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a reliable state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE and path computation clients (PCCs), and between cooperating PCEs. The basic mechanism for state synchronization is part of the stateful PCE specification. This draft presents motivations for optimizations to the base state synchronization procedure and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-03-16 |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-01-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-08.txt |
2017-01-23
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-23
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jan Medved" , "Dhruv Dhody" , "Robert Varga" , "Xian Zhang" , "Edward Crabbe" , "Ina Minei" |
2017-01-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-20
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda. |
2017-01-05
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2017-01-03
|
07 | Xian Zhang | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tomonori Takeda |
2017-01-03
|
07 | Xian Zhang | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tomonori Takeda |
2017-01-03
|
07 | Xian Zhang | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | (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? … (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 front page indicates that the document is on the standards track. This is an appropriate type of RFC as the protocol it describes has been implemented and is intended for deployment, but has not yet seen widespread deployment. (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. Technical Summary: A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is a PCE whose path computations take into account the resources and interactions of the currently active paths in the network. A stateful PCE uses a reliable state synchronization mechanism to learn the set of active paths from its Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and peer stateful PCEs. The basic state synchronization procedure is part of the stateful PCE specification. This draft describes various optional optimizations to the state synchronization procedure, and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions. Working Group Summary: There was some strong opposition from members of the WG to publishing these optimizations in the base stateful PCE specification, because they wanted to keep the base specification as streamlined as possible. The WG therefore decided instead to publish these optimizations separately from the base stateful PCE protocol. Apart from this, there were no particular points of contention in the WG process. The consensus behind publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC appears solid. Document Quality: There are at least two implementations of the optimizations described in this document. The document has had several reviews by members of the working group. There have been no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done. Personnel: Jonathan Hardwick 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 reviewed the document twice, at different stages of its lifetime, and submitted several comments to the authors. These have been addressed to my satisfaction and I believe that the document 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 broader review is required. (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. Although the document concerns optimizations, and we must not optimize prematurely, nevertheless the optimizations are well-motivated by specific, realistic scenarios. (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 IPR has been disclosed. (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? A reasonable cross-section of the WG expressed their support of advancing this document during last call, so the consensus appears fairly strong. (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. Not applicable. (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? There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. Ideally, these two documents would progress to publication at the same time. (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 issues. (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. This document does not request the creation of any 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. Not applicable. |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Changed document writeup |
2016-12-08
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-07.txt |
2016-12-08
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-08
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jan Medved" , "Dhruv Dhody" , "Robert Varga" , "Xian Zhang" , "Edward Crabbe" , "Ina Minei" |
2016-12-08
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-23
|
06 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-06.txt |
2016-10-23
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-23
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jan Medved" , "Dhruv Dhody" , "Robert Varga" , "Xian Zhang" , "Edward Crabbe" , "Ina Minei" |
2016-10-23
|
05 | Xian Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2016-04-27
|
05 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-05.txt |
2015-11-26
|
04 | Jonathan Hardwick | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-01
|
04 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-04.txt |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Jonathan Hardwick" to (None) |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Notification list changed to "Jonathan Hardwick" <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hardwick |
2015-10-06
|
03 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-03.txt |
2015-01-13
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-02.txt |
2014-06-26
|
01 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01.txt |
2014-03-20
|
00 | Julien Meuric | This document now replaces draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations instead of None |
2014-03-12
|
00 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-00.txt |