Skip to main content

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