Requirements for Very Fast Setup of GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps-requirements-02

[Ballot discuss]

Are these reqs consistent with an additional RTT for key exchange?
If not, why is that ok? 100 setups/second implies a real need for a
0RTT model for any key exchange. That has significant protocol
design implications. I think you only need to note that, but that
noting that is really needed. (This could for example affect the
details of [1] or of later work similar to or built on [1]. Full
disclosure: I'm a co-author of [1].)

  [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt

[Ballot comment]
Why isn't the WG working to solve the requirements in this document?

I ask because in general I think that requirement documents are good to motivate work and guide solutions, but their useful lifetime is not beyond that.  The solution is then what should be published.  I also ask because according to the March 2014 CCAMP Meeting Notes one of the authors said:  “we have possible solutions...but before coming with solutions we want an agreement on requirements", but I don't see any work that seems to be related, nor any other document referring to it.

Having said that, given that the document got all the way here, I won't stand in the way of publication.

[Ballot comment]
      Dynamic circuit and virtual circuit switching intrinsically provide guaranteed
      bandwidth, guaranteed low-latency and jitter, and faster
      restoration,

By virtual circuit switching you mean gmpls signaled time or frequency domain allocation. Not any other mpls meaning of virtual circuit switching.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps-requirements-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture
and Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs'
  as Informational RFC

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 2015-09-30. 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


  Establishment and control of Label Switch Paths (LSPs) have become
  mainstream tools of commercial and government network providers.  One
  of the elements of further evolving such networks is scaling their
  performance in terms of LSP bandwidth and traffic loads, LSP
  intensity (e.g., rate of LSP creation, deletion, and modification),
  LSP set up delay, quality of service differentiation, and different
  levels of resilience.

  The goal of this document is to present target scaling objectives and
  the related protocol requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol
  Label Switching (GMPLS).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps-requirements/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps-requirements/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> 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)?

Informational.

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

This is a requirements documents. It presents requirements for very fast setup of GMPLS LSPs.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

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
>
>  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.

Establishment and control of Label Switch Paths (LSPs) have become
mainstream tools of commercial and government network providers. 
One of the elements of further evolving such networks is scaling their
performance in terms of LSP bandwidth and traffic loads, LSP intensity
(e.g., rate of LSP creation, deletion, and modification), LSP set up delay,
quality of service differentiation, and different levels of resilience.

The goal of this document is to present target scaling objectives and the
related protocol requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS).

> 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?

This document moved from the CCAMP WG to TEAS WG as part of the
routing WG changes. The progress of the draft through the WG
(first CCAMP, then TEAS) has been smooth.

>
> 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?

The base GMPLS signaling and routing protocols have been implemented.
The requirements put forth in this document may be the basis for future
documents, some of which may be simply informational, while others may
describe specific GMPLS protocol extensions. While some of these
requirements may be have implications on implementations, the intent is
for the requirements to apply to GMPLS protocols and their standardized
mechanisms.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Vishnu Pavan Beeram

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

>
> (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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as it has progressed
through the WG (first CCAMP, then TEAS). The Shepherd believes this
document is ready for publication.

>
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization?

No.

> If so, describe the review that took place.

N/A.

>
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

No specific concerns.

>
> (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, see thread –
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00470.html

>
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No disclosures have been made.

> (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? 

Solid among those who are interested. "strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

> (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 discontent seen.

>
> (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.

The document passes ID nits.

>
> (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.

> (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 document makes no requests to IANA.

> (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.

None.

> (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

IPR response 1 of 4: Brian Wilson: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CGiQrvzjYutgnPJF0GC_m7Hp6OA
IPR response 2 of 4: Andy Malis: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/EM437_tUUyCcEsxzb5MSeCxeSns
IPR response 3 of 4: George Clapp: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/iLjdqomGdNG-J5GdR8PompJPwAs
IPR response 4 of 4: Vishnu Shukla: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/t5Ij6m0GEhFzcdcndn4oZKRS8D0