Pseudowire Control Word Negotiation Mechanism Update
draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pwe3 WG)
Last updated 2012-06-21 (latest revision 2012-06-15)
Replaces draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Consensus Unknown
Document shepherd Andrew Malis
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Telechat date
Needs a YES. Needs 5 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Stewart Bryant
IESG note Andrew Malis (amalis@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
Send notices to pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation@tools.ietf.org
Network Working Group                                        L. Jin(ed.)
Internet-Draft                                                       ZTE
Updates: 4447 6073(if approved)                              R. Key(ed.)
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: December 17, 2012                                     S. Delord
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                               T. Nadeau
                                                                 Juniper
                                                              S. Boutros
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                           June 15, 2012
                                                 

          Pseudowire Control Word Negotiation Mechanism Update
                draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-04.txt

Abstract

   The control word negotiation mechanism specified in RFC4447 has a
   problem when PE changes the preference for the use of control word
   from PREFERRED to NOT-PREFERRED.  This draft updates RFC4447 by
   introducing a message exchanging mechanism to resolve this control
   word negotiation issue.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

Jin, et al.             Expires December 17, 2012               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-04         June 2012

   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Control word re-negotiation by label request message  . . . . . 4
     3.1.  Control word re-negotiation use case  . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   8.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   9.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix A.  Updated C-bit Handling Procedures Diagram  . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Conventions used in this document 
    
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 

   

Jin, et al.             Expires December 17, 2012               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-04         June 2012

1.  Introduction

   The control word negotiation mechanism specified in [RFC4447] section
   6.2 has a problem when PE changes the preference for the use of
   control word from PREFERRED to NOT-PREFERRED.  There would be a wrong
   negotiated result of the control word as "not used" while both ends
   of pseudowire PE have the use of control word as PREFERRED.  This
   draft updates [RFC4447] by introducing a message exchanging mechanism
   to resolve this negotiation issue.

2.  Problem Statement
Show full document text