Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy
draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-06-24
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-06-09
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-05-30
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2014-05-23
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2014-04-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-04-04
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-04-03
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-04-03
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-04-02
|
16 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2014-04-01
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-03-31
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-03-31
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-03-31
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-03-31
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-03-31
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-03-31
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-03-31
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-03-31
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-03-28
|
16 | Alia Atlas | New draft version addressed the minor comments. |
2014-03-28
|
16 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2014-03-27
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-03-27
|
16 | Samer Salam | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-03-27
|
16 | Samer Salam | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-16.txt |
2014-03-27
|
15 | Alia Atlas | After checking with the authors, there is a comment to be addressed. A new version is expected very soon. |
2014-03-27
|
15 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-03-27
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-03-27
|
15 | Alia Atlas | A new version is expected to address a couple of the comments. |
2014-03-27
|
15 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-03-27
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-03-26
|
15 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my earlier comments. I note that you added to each instance: The string MUST NOT include a terminating null … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my earlier comments. I note that you added to each instance: The string MUST NOT include a terminating null character. That's a silly use of "MUST NOT". You mean "does not". You don't really care if there happens to be a terminating null; if someone puts one there, that's fine. What you care about is that nobody think that it *will* have a terminating null. So you want to say that the string *does not* include a terminating null character. You don't care if the producer of the packet adds an additional null at the end. |
2014-03-26
|
15 | Pete Resnick | Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick |
2014-03-25
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] This comment is a non-blocking consideration for future improvement. The security model relies upon physical security with some (not great) provisions for authentication … [Ballot comment] This comment is a non-blocking consideration for future improvement. The security model relies upon physical security with some (not great) provisions for authentication and access controls (address filtering, anti-spoofing, MD5 authentication). Monitoring provides the ability to catch a problem if a security breach arises s was described in the response to the SecDir review. Our threat models and understanding of them continues to evolve with service providers being a major target, as well as administrators. Stronger authentication options and session encryption should be considered if a redesign as suggested in other IESG reviews is done. |
2014-03-25
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-03-20
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-03-20
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-03-20
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] This is definitely a point solution to the problem for pseudo-wires, where targeted LDP is used as a signalling protocol. My earlier concerns … [Ballot comment] This is definitely a point solution to the problem for pseudo-wires, where targeted LDP is used as a signalling protocol. My earlier concerns have been addressed in version -14. A minor correction (found by Binny Jeshan): Section 7.2.5. mLACP Port Config TLV says, - Flags Valid values are: -i. Synchronized (0x01) Indicates that the sender has concluded transmitting all member link port configurations for a given Aggregator. Shouldn't this be stating it as "given Port" ? |
2014-03-20
|
15 | Alia Atlas | Ballot comment text updated for Alia Atlas |
2014-03-14
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for handling my discuss about the security mechanisms. -15 specifies those nicely I think. The question below remains and I don't recall … [Ballot comment] Thanks for handling my discuss about the security mechanisms. -15 specifies those nicely I think. The question below remains and I don't recall if we discussed that. If the actor key were a cryptographic key then we might need to chat more. Can you confirm its an identifier and not a cryptographic key? - 7.2.4 - what is an "LACP Actor Key"? Sorry, I just don't know:-) Is that an identifier for a thing or a cryptographic key? I assume the former. |
2014-03-14
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-03-13
|
15 | Samer Salam | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-03-13
|
15 | Samer Salam | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-15.txt |
2014-03-13
|
14 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] This is definitely a point solution to the problem for pseudo-wires, where targeted LDP is used as a signalling protocol. My earlier concerns … [Ballot comment] This is definitely a point solution to the problem for pseudo-wires, where targeted LDP is used as a signalling protocol. My earlier concerns have been addressed in version -14. |
2014-03-13
|
14 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-03-13
|
14 | Alia Atlas | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-03-27 from 2014-02-20 |
2014-03-13
|
14 | Alia Atlas | Shepherding AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2014-03-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-24
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-02-24
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | New revision available |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Adding a note after discussion with Stewart and bearing in mind some observations from a couple of other ADs, I think that this … [Ballot comment] Adding a note after discussion with Stewart and bearing in mind some observations from a couple of other ADs, I think that this I-D might make it more obvious that ICCP is running within LDP and why that choice was made. That will stop people "expressing surprise" and making claims of "unwarranted piggybacking." While I accept that this information can be gleaned from the document, it is not really painted red. Perhaps add a short sentence to the Introduction (and not buried :-) saying something like.... This document assumes that it is normal to run LDP between the PEs in the RG, and that LDP components will in any case be present on the PEs to establish and maintain PWs. Therefore, ICCP is built as a secondary protocol running within LDP and taking advantage of the LDP session mechanisms and the underlying TCP and TCP-based security mechanisms already necessary for LDP operation. === I just so wish you hadn't made this "LDP" it shares so little with LDP that you might just as easily have made it a whole new protocol and saved all of the baggage and the strangeness that *will* happen when an implementation gets confused and sends a regular LDP message trying for a label. Indeed, the whole document basically fails to discuss how this fits within LDP in terms of session establishment etc. Thus, I think there is an assumption that there is already an MPLS LDP session between each pair of PEs in an RG such that the elements of this protocol can just piggy-back on that. Indeed, section 4.6 presents a hack for a "separate" session without saying separate from what. In the case where no labels exchange is needed between the PEs, this would be the normal case and it indicates that LDP is not really the best choice for this approach. However, "I think this way of doing things sucks" is clearly not a reason to place a Discuss or to block the document. It is also clear that this approach has been coded and shipped. I think it's a shame it wasn't done cleanly and I am surprised that LDP architects and the PWE3 WG didn't think this an unnecessary hack. --- I think Tom may want to change his coordinates --- I think that new LDP-based documents would do well to include references to further work on MPLS and LDP security. In particular, RFC 5920, RFC 6952, and draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth. |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's position. |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] For what it's worth, not remotely my area of expertise and I'll rely on people who understand this better to carry out the … [Ballot comment] For what it's worth, not remotely my area of expertise and I'll rely on people who understand this better to carry out the conversation, but I had assumed that this was a fairly straightforward extension of LDP and am bemused to understand that it's not. |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Updated... Having read Adrian's comments, I re-read the specification and concur with his concern. Overloading existing protocols can lead to problems. I can … [Ballot comment] Updated... Having read Adrian's comments, I re-read the specification and concur with his concern. Overloading existing protocols can lead to problems. I can envision future work where either the ICCP function or the LDP function needs to change its core behavior. It is quite possible that the requirements for the other function will interfere with making such changes. Given the nature of ICCP, it seems to me that a better design decision would have been to make it a separate protocol. For the IESG... I equate this with the recent discussion we had over the ICMP AUP draft. Overloading existing protocols because they have similar semantics or functionality is not good protocol design. |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Brian Haberman | Ballot comment text updated for Brian Haberman |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Updated... Having read Adrian's comments, I re-read the specification and concur with his concern. Overloading existing protocols can lead to problems. I can … [Ballot comment] Updated... Having read Adrian's comments, I re-read the specification and concur with his concern. Overloading existing protocols can lead to problems. I can envision future work where either the ICCP function or the LDP function needs to change its core behavior. It is quite possible that the requirements for the other function will interfere with making such changes. Given the nature of ICCP, it seems to me that a better design decision would have been to make it a separate protocol. |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to Abstain from No Objection |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] This draft says that some kind of "transport security" is required, but does not seem to say precisely what that means, nor does … [Ballot discuss] This draft says that some kind of "transport security" is required, but does not seem to say precisely what that means, nor does it say how to implement anything meeting the requirement. And the protocol does involve sensitive operations on non-colocated nodes, so I think a bit more work on the security issues is needed. Presumably that will mean clarifying assumptions made (e.g. that all connections, local or remote are somehow "secure") and providing better references to existing mechanisms that can be used, so I'd like to DISCUSS that. I've broken that down into four parts below to help move that discussion along more quickly, but depending on the answer to point (1) in particular, it might turn out to make sense for me to restructure the discuss points, so we should I guess focus on that point first. (1) 3.3: What does "transport security" mean in requirement vii? (2) section 4: which layer handles "transport security"? How can that be done? (3) 10, para 2: "MUST provide a mechanism" does not say what mechanism - how can this be implemented and achieve interop? (4) 10, para 3: "SHOULD provide mechanisms" does not say what mechanism - how can this be implemented and achieve interop? |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - 7.2.4 - what is an "LACP Actor Key"? Sorry, I just don't know:-) Is that an identifier for a thing or a … [Ballot comment] - 7.2.4 - what is an "LACP Actor Key"? Sorry, I just don't know:-) Is that an identifier for a thing or a cryptographic key? I assume the former. |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] A quick scan for things of high-layer interest, so apologies if these are off the mark. If these comments were on an application-layer … [Ballot comment] A quick scan for things of high-layer interest, so apologies if these are off the mark. If these comments were on an application-layer protocol, I'd probably want to DISCUSS them. But I hope you take them to heart nonetheless. 6.2.1: - Sender Name Hostname of sending device encoded in UTF-8, and SHOULD NOT exceed 80 characters. Is this a hostname in the sense of a DNS host name? Do you really want those in UTF-8? Are you wanting U-Label IDNs in there? Seems a bit worrisome. Also, do you mean 80 characters, or 80 octets? 80 characters could be significantly more than 80 octets. 7.1.2.1 and 7.2.2.1: - Disconnect Cause String Variable length string specifying the reason for the disconnect. Used for network management. That in any particular encoding? US-ASCII? UTF-8? Does it matter? 7.1.3.1: - Service Name The name of the L2VPN service instance encoded in UTF-8 format and up to 80 character in length. Do you mean 80 characters, or 80 octets? 7.2.4: - Aggregator Name Aggregator name encoded in UTF-8 format, up to a maximum of 20 characters. Used for ease of management. Do you mean 20 characters, or 20 octets? 7.2.5: - Port Name Port (interface) name encoded in UTF-8 format, up to a maximum of 20 characters. Do you mean 20 characters, or 20 octets? |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I just so wish you hadn't made this "LDP" it shares so little with LDP that you might just as easily have made … [Ballot comment] I just so wish you hadn't made this "LDP" it shares so little with LDP that you might just as easily have made it a whole new protocol and saved all of the baggage and the strangeness that *will* happen when an implementation gets confused and sends a regular LDP message trying for a label. Indeed, the whole document basically fails to discuss how this fits within LDP in terms of session establishment etc. Thus, I think there is an assumption that there is already an MPLS LDP session between each pair of PEs in an RG such that the elements of this protocol can just piggy-back on that. Indeed, section 4.6 presents a hack for a "separate" session without saying separate from what. In the case where no labels exchange is needed between the PEs, this would be the normal case and it indicates that LDP is not really the best choice for this approach. However, "I think this way of doing things sucks" is clearly not a reason to place a Discuss or to block the document. It is also clear that this approach has been coded and shipped. I think it's a shame it wasn't done cleanly and I am surprised that LDP architects and the PWE3 WG didn't think this an unnecessary hack. --- I think Tom may want to change his coordinates --- I think that new LDP-based documents would do well to include references to further work on MPLS and LDP security. In particular, RFC 5920, RFC 6952, and draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth. |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I just so wish you hadn't made this "LDP" it shares so little with LDP that you might just as easily have made … [Ballot comment] I just so wish you hadn't made this "LDP" it shares so little with LDP that you might just as easily have made it a whole new protocol and saved all of the baggage and the strangeness that *will* happen when an implementation gets confused and sends a regular LDP message trying for a label. Indeed, the whole document basically fails to discuss how this fits within LDP in terms of session establishment etc. Thus, I think there is an assumption that there is already an MPLS LDP session between each pair of PEs in an RG such that the elements of this protocol can just piggy-back on that. Indeed, section 4.6 presents a hack for a "separate" session without saying separate from what. In the case where no labels exchange is needed between the PEs, this would be the normal case and it indicates that LDP is not really the best choice for this approach. However, "I think this way of doing things sucks" is clearly not a reason to place a Discuss or to block the document. It is also clear that this approach has been coded and shipped. I think it's a shame it wasn't done cleanly and I am suprised that LDP architects and the PWE3 WG didn't think this an unnecessary hack. --- I think Tom may want to change his coordinates --- I think that new LDP-based documents would do well to include references to further work on MPLS and LDP security. In particular, RFC 5920, RFC 6952, and draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth. |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Based on a quick read, I see no issues that impact the Internet area and trust the shepherding AD's judgement. |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-02-19
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-02-17
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-02-13
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-02-13
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-02-12
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2014-02-11
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-02-11
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-20 |
2014-02-11
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
2014-02-11
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-02-11
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-02-11
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-02-11
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-02-10
|
13 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2014-02-10
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-10
|
13 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA has a question about one of the requests made in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Message Type Name Space subregistry of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ five new registrations are to be made as follows: Value: 0x0700 Name: RG Connect Message Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 0x0701 Name: RG Disconnect Message Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 0x0702 Name: RG Notification Message Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 0x0703 Name: RG Application Data Message Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 0x0704-0x070F Name: Reserved for future ICCP use Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the TLV Type Name Space subregistry of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ a single new registration will be made as follows: Value: 0x700 Description: ICCP capability TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, IANA understands that a new registry is to be created called the "ICC RG parameter type" registry. The ICC RG parameter types will be 14-bit values. IANA Question -> Should this new registry be a standalone registry, or should it be grouped with, or perhaps a subregistry, of and existing registry? The registration rules for this new registry are as follows 1 through 0x003A are specified in the current document. 0x003B through 0x1FFF are registered via the "Expert Review" policy as defined in [RFC5226]. 0x2000 through 0x2FFF, 0x3FFF, and 0 are registered via IETF consensus policy as defined in [RFC5226]. 0x3000 through 0x3FFE are reserved for vendor proprietary extensions and are to be assigned via "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC5226]. There are initial assignments in the new registry as follows (all of the initial assignments will be given a reference of [ RFC-to-be ].: Parameter Type Description -------------- --------------------------------- 0x0001 ICC Sender Name 0x0002 NAK TLV 0x0003 Requested Protocol Version TLV 0x0004 Disconnect Code TLV 0x0005 ICC RG ID TLV 0x0006-0x000F Reserved 0x0010 PW-RED Connect TLV 0x0011 PW-RED Disconnect TLV 0x0012 PW-RED Config TLV 0x0013 Service Name TLV 0x0014 PW ID TLV 0x0015 Generalized PW ID TLV 0x0016 PW-RED State TLV 0x0017 PW-RED Synchronization Request TLV 0x0018 PW-RED Synchronization Data TLV 0x0019 PW-RED Disconnect Cause TLV 0x001A-0x002F Reserved 0x0030 mLACP Connect TLV 0x0031 mLACP Disconnect TLV 0x0032 mLACP System Config TLV 0x0033 mLACP Port Config TLV 0x0034 mLACP Port Priority TLV 0x0035 mLACP Port State TLV 0x0036 mLACP Aggregator Config TLV 0x0037 mLACP Aggregator State TLV 0x0038 mLACP Synchronization Request TLV 0x0039 mLACP Synchronization Data TLV 0x003A mLACP Disconnect Cause TLV Fourth, in the Status Code Name Space subregistry of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ nine new registrations are to be made as follows: Range/Value: 0x00010001 E: 0 Description: Unknown ICCP RG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010002 E: 0 Description: ICCP Connection Count Exceeded Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010003 E: 0 Description: ICCP Application Connection Count Exceeded Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010004 E: 0 Description: ICCP Application not in RG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010005 E: 0 Description: Incompatible ICCP Protocol Version Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010006 E: 0 Description: ICCP Rejected Message Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010007 E: 0 Description: ICCP Administratively Disabled Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010010 E: 0 Description: ICCP RG Removed Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Range/Value: 0x00010011 E: 0 Description: ICCP Application Removed from RG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones that are 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. |
2014-02-02
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2014-02-02
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2014-01-31
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-01-31
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2014-01-30
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2014-01-30
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2014-01-28
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-01-28
|
13 | 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: (Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document: - 'Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy' 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 2014-02-11. 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 an inter-chassis communication protocol (ICCP) that enables Provider Edge (PE) device redundancy for Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) applications. The protocol runs within a set of two or more PEs, forming a redundancy group, for the purpose of synchronizing data amongst the systems. It accommodates multi-chassis attachment circuit as well as pseudowire redundancy mechanisms. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ |
2014-01-28
|
13 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-01-28
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Last call was requested |
2014-01-28
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-01-28
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-01-28
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-01-28
|
13 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-01-23
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-01-23
|
13 | Samer Salam | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13.txt |
2013-12-23
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | To address AD review comments sent to authors/chairs |
2013-12-23
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | 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 … 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)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. A new protocol and IANA registry are being defined. 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 an inter-chassis communication protocol (ICCP) that enables Provider Edge (PE) device redundancy for Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) applications. The protocol runs within a set of two or more PEs, forming a redundancy group, for the purpose of synchronizing data amongst the systems. It accommodates multi-chassis attachment circuit as well as pseudowire redundancy mechanisms. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was good consensus on the document, with one exception that is discussed in the section on IPR. That one exception was the only thing really worth noting in the process.. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is at least one shipping implementation "deployed in multiple customer networks". Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Andy Malis and 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 shepherd conducted a post-WG last call review of -11, which resulted in a revised -12, which is being submitted here. (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. None. (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. There was a discussion of IPR that occurred after -09 was uploaded. Cisco issued an IPR declaration on -09 (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/ ) that came as a bit of a surprise at that late stage, but it was the result of an oversight on the part of the authors and nothing nefarious. The IPR claim was on an optional procedure in the draft, and after discussion by the WG, the authors revised the draft to remove that particular procedure and replace it with a different way of getting the same functionality. Thus, that IPR claim no longer applies to revisions past -09. (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? WG consensus is solid. (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. There is one nit of note, an outdated informational reference: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit has been published as RFC 6870. This can be corrected by the RFC Editor. There is also a normative reference to an IEEE standard that nits complained about. (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. As I said above, there is a normative reference to an IEEE standard, (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). The IANA Considerations section is straightforward and meets the criteria in the question. (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. The new "ICC RG Parameter Type" registry requires Expert Review for allocations in one of three possible ranges. The expert should be a person with a general familiarity with LDP and this draft/RFC. (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. |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | State Change Notice email list changed to pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | Responsible AD changed to Stewart Bryant |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-12-09
|
12 | Andy Malis | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-22
|
12 | Andy Malis | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-10-20
|
12 | Luca Martini | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-12.txt |
2013-08-21
|
11 | Andy Malis | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2013-07-31
|
11 | Andy Malis | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-07-19
|
11 | Andy Malis | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-07-18
|
11 | Andy Malis | Document shepherd changed to Andrew G. Malis |
2013-02-21
|
11 | Andy Malis | Started WG last call |
2013-02-21
|
11 | Luca Martini | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-11.txt |
2013-02-20
|
10 | Luca Martini | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-10.txt |
2012-10-23
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 | |
2012-07-30
|
09 | Luca Martini | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09.txt |
2012-06-20
|
08 | Luca Martini | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-08.txt |
2012-02-07
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-07.txt |
2012-01-10
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-07-10
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-06.txt |
2011-04-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-05.txt |
2010-10-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-04.txt |
2010-07-12
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03.txt |
2009-10-24
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-02.txt |
2009-06-23
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-01.txt |
2009-06-19
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-00.txt |