Extensions to RSVP-TE for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ingress Fast Reroute (FRR) Protection
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-17

[Ballot comment]
"The Private Use ranges can be used for experimental use, they
  will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs."

This is an inappropriate use of normative language since the ranges are defined in RFC 3936.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with the SecDir reviewer that the referenced security considerations are adequate, but it would be helpful to restate what's available in this draft.  One does not expect an RFC from 1997 to cover integrity protections (hop-by-hop) and authentication, so stating that these mechanisms are part of the protocol would be helpful.  I did not dig into to see what was used for those functions or if they are adequate today (if they have not been updated, they are likely due).  Additionally, 2 of the other referenced RFCs had the additional use of filters, does that apply here?  Can you add a couple sentences about that as well?  I assume they do apply, otherwise the references would not be included.

Thank you!

[Ballot comment]
(1) As written, the expected result of the experiment is to select one approach.  Clearly, the intent is for the mechanisms to be compared.  That's good!  But what will the criteria be?  Are there benchmarks related to (for example) packet loss or state...?  Maybe it is simply an experiment to figure out which approach is implemented and deployed.  In any case, it would be nice to add some text about the expectations.

(2) The IANA Considerations Section still needs some work.  I know that the authors have been in conversations with IANA (IESG was cc'd) and that the result is to add the "This document does not request any IANA actions" text.

However, to avoid confusion it would be better if the IANA Considerations section only contained that text, and a new Section (maybe "Class Name and Number") was added to include the current text.

(2.1) About the current text...  I find the text about the Class Number a little confusing as in the end it doesn't matter which Private Use range is used; and the use of Normative Language...  Suggestion:

OLD>
  The assignment of a new Class Name and corresponding 8-bit Class
  Number data object in an RSVP message is defined in ([RFC3936]) with
  ranges for Standards Action, Expert Review, and Reserved for Private
  Use. The Private Use ranges can be used for experimental use, they
  will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.

  It is suggested to use the following Private Use range:

    o  124-127 Reserved for Private Use

  It is for an experimental implementation to choose a value from the
  Private Use range, and to agree with cooperating implementations
  participating in the same experiments what values to use.

NEW>
  The IANA Registry for Class Numbers created by [rfc3936] didn't define a
  range to be used for Experimental Use [rfc8126]; instead several Private Use
  ranges exist.  It is suggested that a value from a Private Use range
  (124-127 for example) be chosen for experimentation.

[Ballot comment]
I was involved in earlier versions of this document before becoming an AD.
I completely understand the WG wishing to get it off their plate and
Experimental is a reasonable way of doing that.

It is still disappointing that after 4+ years, there is no interest
in actual implementations or comparing the two approaches quantitatively.
There has simply not been good discussion.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has questions about two of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. One question concerns putting an action on hold until the document changes track.

The IANA Services Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types registry on the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/

a single new registration is to be made:

Class Number: [ TBD ]
Description: INGRESS_PROTECTION
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors suggest a value of 124 for this new registration.

Second, a new subregistry called Class Types or C-Types - XXXX INGRESS_PROTECTION (where XXXX is the class number registered in the first step above) will be created.

IANA Question --> ]Should value "0" be listed as "Unassigned" (i.e. available for assignment), listed as "Reserved," or left out of the subregistry?

These are the initial registrations:

Value: 1
Description: INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 2
Description: INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new subregistry of the newly created C-Types subregistry described above will be created. Its title will be "Sub-object type - XXXX INGRESS_PROTECTION" (where XXXX is the number of the class type registered in the first step above).

IANA Question --> This document states that "When this document moves to standards track, IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry." However, tracking a document's state would be difficult for us to arrange. Were the authors intending to publish a bis that moves the document from informational to standards track? We do have experience with that approach. 

IANA Question --> Is this to be a Sub-object type for C-Type 1, C-Type 2, or both?

IANA Question --> Can you confirm that this Sub-object type registry's name uses only the Class Name and Number, and not either of the C-Type names or values?

IANA Question --> Does this registry have a maximum value? Should value "0" be listed as "Unassigned" (i.e. available for assignment), listed as "Reserved," or left out of the subregistry?

These are the initial registrations:

Value Name Reference
-----+--------------------------------+-------------
1 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS [ RFC-to-be ]
2 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS [ RFC-to-be ]
3 INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS [ RFC-to-be ]
4 INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS [ RFC-to-be ]
5 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_INTERFACE [ RFC-to-be ]
6 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv4_PREFIX [ RFC-to-be ]
7 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv6_PREFIX [ RFC-to-be ]
8 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_APPLICATION [ RFC-to-be ]
9 LABEL_ROUTES [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Vishnu Beeram , db3546@att.com, Vishnu Beeram , teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vishnupavan@gmail.com, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress FRR Protection) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Extensions to
RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress FRR Protection'
  as Experimental 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 2018-03-01. 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 describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
  Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node
  of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
  Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP).  The procedures described
  in this document are experimental.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2080/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2462/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2535/

> 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)?

Experimental.

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

There is interest in ensuring that a particular problem is documented and that there may be multiple possible solutions to this problem.  The WG concluded that there is not support for new Standards Track mechanisms at
this point in time. The procedures defined in the document are experimental in nature.

> 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.

This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node
of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP).


> 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 MPLS WG to TEAS WG as part of the
routing WG changes. The document was adopted by the MPLS WG in
March 2014 and it has gone through several iterations since then.
There was a virtual interim meeting held in January 2016 to debate
the merits of the proposed solutions. There were also some issues
found by the  Shepherd after the WG Last Call. An informal 1-week
Last Call was needed after these issues got addressed.

>
> 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 MPLS RSVP protocol has been implemented. The extensions
defined in this document are compatible with earlier implementations. 
While there have been no public statements on implementation, the
authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation is expected. 

> 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 MPLS, 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
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/avZXLOjZogre10gLEjeocRz0fUY

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

Yes, an IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2535/

> (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 extreme discontent seen after the document status was changed to “experimental.

>
> (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 IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd. All protocol
extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate
reservations in IANA registries.

> (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

mehmet.toy@verizon.com - no IPR
renwei.li@huawei.com - no IPR
liulei.kddi@gmail.com - no IPR
ningso01@gmail.com - no IPR
tsaad@cisco.com - No IPR
Boris.Zhang@telus.com - No IPR
mjork@juniper.net - no IPR
huaimo.chen@huawei.com - IPR exists and has been disclosed.
yshen@juniper.net - No IPR
rtorvi@juniper.net - No IPR
quintin.zhao@huawei.com - IPR exists, has been disclosed

Still waiting:
hliu@ciena.com
zhenbin.li@huawei.com
fengman.xu@verizon.com