IP Fast Reroute Framework
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-13
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2019-06-05
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Downref to RFC 5714 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-11 |
|
2015-10-14
|
13 | (System) | Notify list changed from rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
13 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Record position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2012-08-22
|
13 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
|
2010-01-19
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-19
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5714' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-14
|
13 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2009-10-26
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-10-26
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2009-10-26
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2009-10-26
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2009-10-26
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2009-10-26
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-10-23
|
13 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
|
2009-10-23
|
13 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-10-23
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-10-23
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-13.txt |
|
2009-10-12
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-10-09
|
13 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08 |
|
2009-10-08
|
13 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sandra Murphy. |
|
2009-10-08
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-10-08
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-10-08
|
13 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2009-10-08
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Section 1 The definition of "E" uses the term "primary next-hop neighbor" but your terminology defines the term "primary neighbor". --- Section 1 … [Ballot comment] Section 1 The definition of "E" uses the term "primary next-hop neighbor" but your terminology defines the term "primary neighbor". --- Section 1 Upstream forwarding loop defintion s/none of which are/none of which is/ --- It is a slight editorial concern that some sections have multiple numbered bullet lists using the same ordinals. Could you consider using letters for second lists so there is no confusion between lists? |
|
2009-10-08
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] I like this document and I only have a small Discuss. Section 1 Distance_opt(A,B) The distance of the shortest path from A … [Ballot discuss] I like this document and I only have a small Discuss. Section 1 Distance_opt(A,B) The distance of the shortest path from A to B. We seem to lack a definition of "distance". I know this is used in RFC 2328, but it is (IMHO) too close to implying hop-count, which is not what you mean. Maybe "cost" is a better word, but you would still do well to include a definition such as: cost The sum of the link metrics for the links in a path. |
|
2009-10-08
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-10-07
|
13 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-10-07
|
13 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-10-07
|
13 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2009-10-07
|
13 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 2., paragraph 2: > Recent advances in routers have reduced this interval to under a > second for carefully configured … [Ballot comment] Section 2., paragraph 2: > Recent advances in routers have reduced this interval to under a > second for carefully configured networks using link state IGPs. > However, new Internet services are emerging which may be sensitive to > periods of traffic loss which are orders of magnitude shorter than > this. It'd be fair to point out that although fast reroute can significantly improve behavior under failures for such applications, it is no panacea. When the characteristics of the backup path are different from the primary path (less available capacity, but also even longer delay), some of those services will still experience some issues. |
|
2009-10-07
|
13 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] Section 4.1., paragraph 0: > 4.1. Mechanisms for fast failure detection DISCUSS: Some of these fast failure detection techniques (the ones … [Ballot discuss] Section 4.1., paragraph 0: > 4.1. Mechanisms for fast failure detection DISCUSS: Some of these fast failure detection techniques (the ones based on observing packet loss) can lead to false positives when used with very aggressive detection intervals, because losses caused by transient congestion appear as a failure. I believe it's important to point out somewhere in this document (maybe in this section) that any technique used for fast failure detection MUST avoid being confused by transient congestion. Otherwise, route flapping can occur, with all the bad effects that has on transport connections & the network in general. |
|
2009-10-07
|
13 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-10-06
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-10-06
|
13 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-10-06
|
13 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] How does section 4.2.2 explain the percentages given for various failure modes in section 4.2? I see how section 4.2.2 describes how an … [Ballot comment] How does section 4.2.2 explain the percentages given for various failure modes in section 4.2? I see how section 4.2.2 describes how an analysis could be performed, but I don't see the specific analysis that gives the percentages in section 4.2. Section 4.3 piqued my curiosity; it would be useful (but certainly not necessary) to say more: 4.3. Local Area Networks Protection against partial or complete failure of LANs is more complex than the point to point case. In general there is a trade- off between the simplicity of the repair and the ability to provide complete and optimal repair coverage. |
|
2009-09-29
|
13 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
|
2009-09-29
|
13 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
|
2009-09-29
|
13 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-09-29
|
13 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08 by Ross Callon |
|
2009-09-29
|
13 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon |
|
2009-09-18
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-12.txt |
|
2009-09-04
|
13 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-08-31
|
13 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2009-08-22
|
13 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2009-08-22
|
13 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2009-08-21
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-08-21
|
13 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-08-21
|
13 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
|
2009-08-21
|
13 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
|
2009-08-21
|
13 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-08-21
|
13 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-08-21
|
13 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-06-29
|
13 | Ross Callon | PROTO writeup by John Scudder: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document … PROTO writeup by John Scudder: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? John Scudder. Yes. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been published for some time and has received substantive comments which indicates to me that at least some WG members have read it carefully. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I generally take a somewhat skeptical view of framework documents but this one seems worthwhile and I think it should be published. (1.e) 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? I would describe the consensus as "silence gives assent". Since this is a framework and a very mature one at that, it's somewhat difficult to generate enthusiasm. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? IDNits throws a warning for pre-RFC5378. I don't think there's a problem and have verified with the authors that they don't either. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Refs are fine. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This is fine too. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A. (1.k) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. 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? 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? Technical Summary This document provides a framework for the development of IP fast- reroute mechanisms which provide protection against link or router failure by invoking locally determined repair paths. Unlike MPLS fast-reroute, the mechanisms are applicable to a network employing conventional IP routing and forwarding. Working Group Summary This document has been evolving since 2004 and reflects a good summary of the approaches explored by the WG. The document is non-controversial. Document Quality The document is a framework intended as an Informational RFC and does not specify a protocol. It has received reasonable review from WG members. The WG also has implementation experience with some of the repair techniques mentioned in the framework, notably loop-free alternates (RFC5286). |
|
2009-06-29
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11.txt |
|
2009-06-10
|
13 | Ross Callon | Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-02-27
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-10.txt |
|
2008-10-30
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-09.txt |
|
2008-08-28
|
13 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2008-02-25
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-08.txt |
|
2007-07-05
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-07.txt |
|
2006-10-20
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-06.txt |
|
2006-03-03
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-05.txt |
|
2005-10-21
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-04.txt |
|
2005-06-21
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-03.txt |
|
2004-10-28
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-02.txt |
|
2004-06-23
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-01.txt |
|
2004-06-14
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-00.txt |