MPLS Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements
draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Bert Wijnen |
2005-01-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-01-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-01-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-01-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-01-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Doc is now approved with this RFC-Editor note: Please change in section 5.2.2.1 OLD: The following provides a set of TE-LSP parameters in the … Doc is now approved with this RFC-Editor note: Please change in section 5.2.2.1 OLD: The following provides a set of TE-LSP parameters in the inter-AS TE Requests (RSVP Path Message) that SHOULD be enforced at the AS boundaries: NEW: The following provides a set of TE-LSP parameters in the inter-AS TE Requests (RSVP Path Message) that could be enforced at the AS boundaries: |
2005-01-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2005-01-19 from 2005-01-17 |
2005-01-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2005-01-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Bert Wijnen |
2005-01-17
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | I am passing a proposal to get Allison's concern fixed to the authors. |
2005-01-17
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2005-01-17 from 2004-12-28 |
2004-12-28
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Anotehr Check with Allison |
2004-12-28
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-12-28 from 2004-11-04 |
2004-11-04
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Checking yet one more time with Allsion. Specifically I suspect that the change in sect 5.2.2.1 from "could be" to "SHOULD be" is NOT addressing … Checking yet one more time with Allsion. Specifically I suspect that the change in sect 5.2.2.1 from "could be" to "SHOULD be" is NOT addressing Allisons comment. |
2004-11-04
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-11-04 from 2004-09-28 |
2004-09-28
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Checking (again) with Ted and Allison if their comments have been appropriately addressed. |
2004-09-28
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-09-28 from 2004-08-21 |
2004-09-20
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Mary Barnes, Gen-ART |
2004-09-13
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-09-13
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-09.txt |
2004-08-21
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-21
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | New revision expected as promised by one author. |
2004-08-21
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-08-21 from 2004-08-12 |
2004-08-20
|
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19 |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Note]: 'Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot discuss] To make sure I get comments addressed. |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-19
|
09 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Received from General Area Review Team ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: 18. august 2004 15:27 -0400 From: Mary Barnes To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand' Cc: gen-art@alvestrand.no … Received from General Area Review Team ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: 18. august 2004 15:27 -0400 From: Mary Barnes To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand' Cc: gen-art@alvestrand.no Subject: Review of draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-08.txt Assignment: ----------- o draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-08.txt MPLS Inter-AS Traffic Engineering requirements (Informational) - 4 of 6 Note: NOTE WELL: revision 08 should arrive on August 12.. That is the one to be reviewed/approved.. . Participant in PROTO Team pilot:. Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.t xt Token: Bert Wijnen REVIEWER: Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortelnetworks.com) Summary: -------- The draft should be ready for publication as Informational with the corrections noted below and perhaps some WG discussion (or chair feedback at a minimum) on the comments identified below. I did find the document difficult to read, but it could be entirely because I am neither an MPLS nor traffic engineering expert. However, I have made some suggestions for rewording for the areas that I found most difficult to read. Given that it's a requirements document and has been approved by the WG, I don't think any substantive editing effort beyond that is particularly worthwhile. Comments: --------- 1. Given that this document also contains a substantive section on application scenarios, it might be worthwhile to consider a change in name to: "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic Engineering Requirements and Scenarios". In which case, I would also suggest changing the second sentence in the abstract from: "Its main objective is to present a set of requirements which would result in general guidelines for the definition, selection and specification development for any technical solution(s) meeting these requirements." to: "Its main objective is to present a set of requirements and scenarios which would result in general guidelines for the definition, selection and specification development for any technical solution(s) meeting these requirements and supporting the scenarios." At a minimum, the abstract should include at least a mention of the document also containing scenarios. 2. Page 8, section 3.3, 1st paragraph. Is this really supposed to be dealing with "QoS guarantees"? Shouldn't this just be "bandwidth guarantees"(per the general Objectives and Requirements in 3.2)? 3. Page 12, section 4.2.1, 2nd paragraph, last sentence. There's another reference to "QOS services", but it seems that this should also be "bandwidth guarantees". Or, this document needs to define what they mean by QOS services. 4. Page 13, section 4.2.1, 7th paragraph, another "QoS" reference. Propose to change "QoS requirement" to "bandwidth requirements". Nits: ----- 1. Page 1. Status of this memo. Needs updating to the new template, per the new guidelines. 2. Page 3, section 1, 1st sentence, the abbreviation for Service Providers "(SPs)" should be added here as the term "SP" is used in a subsequent paragraph. 3. Page 5, section 3.1, definition of Intra-AS TE, correct the extra whitespace between "an" and "AS". 4. Page 5, section 3.1, definition of Inter-AS TE. Suggest to add the following to this definition to clarify that this term is used specifically to refer to IP/MPLS networks for the scope of this document (as clarified later in the document in section 3.3): "Since this document only addresses IP/MPLS networks, any reference to Inter-AS TE in this document refers only to IP/MPLS networks and is not intended to address IP-only TE requirements." 5. Page 7, section 3.2.2, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence. For readability (and per Webster's), change "Un-deterministic" to "Nondeterministic" and "un-coordinated" to "uncoordinated". 6. Page 9, section 4.1.1, 4th paragraph, last sentence. For readability, change: "beyond the scope of this document and will therefore not be discussed here" to: "beyond the scope of this document and are not discussed further." 7. Starting on Page 9, 5th paragraph, there are funky characters due to using the wrong format for the single quote spread throughout the remainder of sections in 4.1. (e.g. SP1Æs). 8. Page 12, section 4.2.1, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence. Change "Continent" to "continent". 9. Page 12, section 4.2.1, 5th paragraph, 1st paragraph. For readability, remove "(not partially)" OR add ", rather than partially" to the end of that sentence. 10. Page 16, section 5.1.6, 1st sentence. Change "pair" to "pairs". 11. Page 16, section 5.1.6, 1st paragraph, last sentence. Add a "SHOULD" prior to "interoperate" in the last sentence to highlight this 2nd requirement (provided SHOULD is the appropriate strength for that requirement). 12. Page 17, setion 5.1.7, 1st paragraph, last sentence. Ditto comment 10. 13. Page 19, section 5.1.13. Remove "on" from the phrase "SHOULD NOT impact on existing". 14. Page 25, section 11. Copyright date should be 2004. |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Note]: 'NOTE WELL: revision 08 should arrive on August 12. That is the one to be reviewed/approved. Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup … [Note]: 'NOTE WELL: revision 08 should arrive on August 12. That is the one to be reviewed/approved. Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Allison Mankin |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] The document speaks of the OSPF-based TE: However, because these means offer coarser control of traffic paths and do not … [Ballot comment] The document speaks of the OSPF-based TE: However, because these means offer coarser control of traffic paths and do not readily offer bandwidth guarantees or fast restoration, they will not be discussed further in this document. It does not give citations of the work, or provide analysis of this negative statement. There are claims to the contrary on these points, so it isn't really a reasonable point to just throw in here, without analysis. Better to just say that this document just chooses to explore the fine-grained approach using MPLS, rather than pursuing the more aggregated approach using OSPF. What is a "mechanism", which the document refers to these requirements as leading to? Operational guidelines for the inter-AS usage? The document has a list (5.2.2.1) of Inter-AS TE Enforcement Agreement Policies, that "could be" enforced at the boundaries. The preemption object is under this not very strong list. It would be very advisable to suggest it be not enforced, because of the complex issues that arise composing preemption rules that have been set by non-coordinated endpoints in the ASs and by the authorization issues. |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] The document speaks of the OSPF-based TE: However, because these means offer coarser control of traffic paths and do not … [Ballot comment] The document speaks of the OSPF-based TE: However, because these means offer coarser control of traffic paths and do not readily offer bandwidth guarantees or fast restoration, they will not be discussed further in this document. It does not give citations of the work, or provide analysis of this negative statement. There are claims to the contrary on these points, so it isn't really a reasonable point to just throw in here, without analysis. Better to just say that this document just chooses to explore the fine-grained approach using MPLS, rather than pursuing the more aggregated approach using OSPF. What is a "mechanism", which the document refers to these requirements as leading to? Operational guidelines for the inter-AS usage? |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] The document speaks of the OSPF-based TE: However, because these means offer coarser control of traffic paths and do not … [Ballot comment] The document speaks of the OSPF-based TE: However, because these means offer coarser control of traffic paths and do not readily offer bandwidth guarantees or fast restoration, they will not be discussed further in this document. It does not give citations of the work, or provide analysis of this negative statement. There are claims to the contrary on these points, so it isn't really a reasonable point to just throw in here, without analysis. Better to just say that this document just chooses to explore the fine-grained approach using MPLS, rather than pursuing the more aggregated approach using OSPF. |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Mary Barnes, Gen-ART The abstract & title does not say that the document contains scenarios. Perhaps it should. |
2004-08-19
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-08-18
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-08-17
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie |
2004-08-17
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] There are a number of non-ASCII characters in section 4. I personally found the use of the term "Application Scenarios" in section 4 … [Ballot comment] There are a number of non-ASCII characters in section 4. I personally found the use of the term "Application Scenarios" in section 4 confusing. These really don't relate to inter-AS traffic engineering requirements for specific applications, the mention of voice over ip and video over IP as a driver for 4.1.3 notwithstanding. These are deployment strategies that inter-AS traffic engineering enables (or improves), not application scenarios. In 5.1.2., the draft says: One can conceive that an inter-AS MPLS TE tunnel path signaled across inter-AS links consists of a sequence of intra-AS segments. Do they mean that this is modeled as sequence of intra-AS segments? In the same section, the draft says: In addition, the proposed solution SHOULD provide the ability to specify and signal that certain loose or explicit nodes (e.g. AS numbers, etc.) and resources are to be explicitly excluded in the inter-AS TE LSP path establishment, such as one defined in [EXCLUDE-ROUTE] for instance. This makes it looks like an AS number is a node, where I think they mean the AS number is part of the tuple (as in 5.1.10.1). Some clarification might be in order. |
2004-08-17
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2004-08-13
|
09 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-08-12
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-08.txt |
2004-08-12
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-12
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Ballot has been issued by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-12
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-08-12
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-08-12
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-08-12
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-08-12
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-12
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19 by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-12
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-08-12 from 2004-05-14 |
2004-08-12
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Note]: 'NOTE WELL: revision 08 should arrive on August 12. That is the one to be reviewed/approved. Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup … [Note]: 'NOTE WELL: revision 08 should arrive on August 12. That is the one to be reviewed/approved. Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Bert Wijnen |
2004-06-17
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-07.txt |
2004-05-17
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Shepherding AD has been changed to Bert Wijnen from Harald Alvestrand |
2004-05-17
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Shepherding AD has been changed to Harald Alvestrand from Bert Wijnen |
2004-05-14
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Detailed review from a member of the Routing Area Directorate (RTG-DIR) received, forwarded to TEWG chairs for follow up. |
2004-05-14
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Detailed review from one of the CCAMP WG chairs received, forwarded to TEWG chairs |
2004-05-14
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-05-14 from 2004-05-11 |
2004-05-11
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-05-11 from |
2004-05-11
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Requested review by RTG directorate (via Alex) and OPS Directorate. Also checking with CCAMP WG chair. |
2004-05-11
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: dinsdag 11 mei 2004 15:52 To: Ed Kern (E-mail); Jim Boyle (E-mail) Cc: Alex Zinin (E-mail) Subject: AD … -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: dinsdag 11 mei 2004 15:52 To: Ed Kern (E-mail); Jim Boyle (E-mail) Cc: Alex Zinin (E-mail) Subject: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt WG chairs, as you probably have seen, we are processing this as an experiment with new process: Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-01.txt Supposedly you had been informed/consulted about this by the proto team, and I assume you are OK with that. If not... pls do speak up (preferably to the message from proto-team announcing us being part of the experiment). So here we go with an initial set of comments. I am reading more and I am asking OPS and RTG directorates for review. 1. ID-nits check: $ idnits-v1.24 network. This allows SP1Æs customers connected to SP2 PE router to ^ Line 488 contains non-ascii character in position 41. --> TE LSP tail-end router located in SP1Æs network, as shown in the ^ 2. Pls remove section: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt This makes no sense once it gets to "Publication requested" stage. 3. The use of RFC2119 language requires a normative ref to that doc. 4. Section 5.1.10.1 seems to require a writable MIB so that inter-AS TE tunnels can be configured (created. modified, deleted) via SNMP. It is OK with me... but are you sure that that is a hard requirement (MUST language is used) ? 5. Sect 5.1.12 and 5.1.13 use "SHOULD not" while I think "SHOULD NOT" is intended? 6. Lots of acronyms are used without being expanded the first time thye are used. 7. Sect 6.1 .... MMM.... what does it really mean? It is so flexible, that ... oh well ... 8. End of sect 6.2 says: Other criteria might be added as this draft will evolve. while this draft is now "complete", no? 9. I worry about several normative references to pretty old I-Ds. Any outlook that those will indeed be approved at some point in time. Maybe several references are pretty old and need updating? 10. I understand that the doc is written by people for which English is probably a second language. But that results in it being tough reading. Is there a way to have someone check it for proper english and readable sentences? Thanks, Bert |
2004-05-11
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bert Wijnen |
2004-05-11
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Change Notice email list have been change to ,,,< jpv@cisco.com>, from |
2004-05-01
|
09 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'Participant in PROTO Team pilot: Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-03-16
|
09 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova |
2004-02-05
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt |
2004-01-21
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-05.txt |
2004-01-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-04.txt |
2003-12-10
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-03.txt |
2003-11-19
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-02.txt |
2003-10-27
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-01.txt |
2003-05-29
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-00.txt |