Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Using Data Labels for Tree Selection for Multi-Destination Data
draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-05

[Ballot comment]
One minor comment/question:
The doc says: "It may be desirable to have some fixed algorithm to make sure all ingress RBs choose the same tree for VLAN x in this case."
Wouldn't it be useful to specify such an (example) algo in this doc to make sure that all devices implement the same?

[Ballot comment]
One minor comment/question:
The doc says: "It may be desirable to have some fixed algorithm to make sure all ingress RBs choose the same tree for VLAN x in this case."
Would it be useful to specify such an (example) in this doc, so make sure that all devices implement the same?

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there is a single action that must be completed.

In Section 6 of the current version of the document, the authors request: "IANA is requested to assigne five new TRILL APPsub-TLV type codes from the range less than 255 as specified in Section 3 and update the TRILL Parameters registry as shown below"

However, in both Section 3 and Section 6 six type codes are listed. It also appears that the codes in Section 3 and the codes in Section 6 are the same.

IAnA understands that the registrations to be completed are:


Type Name of APPSub TLV code Reference
---- ----------------------- ---------

tbd1 Tree and VLANs [this document 3.2.1]
tbd2 Tree and VLANs Used [this document 3.2.2]
tbd3 Tree and FGLs [this document 3.2.3]
tbd4 Tree and FGLs Used [this document 3.2.4]
tbd5 Tree and Groups [this document 3.2.5]
tbd6 Tree and Groups Used [this document 3.2.6]

IANA Question --> Which subregistry of the TRILL registry is to be updated with these values? Are the values in Section 3 and Section 6 of the current document the same? Are there five values to be reigstered or six?

IANA understands that this is the only action 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. 

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, skh@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL: Data Label based Tree Selection for Multi-destination Data) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document:
- 'TRILL: Data Label based Tree Selection for Multi-destination Data'
  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 2016-07-01. 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


  TRILL uses distribution trees to deliver multi-destination frames.
  Multiple trees can be used by an ingress RBridge for flows regardless
  of the VLAN, Fine Grained Label (FGL), and/or multicast group of the
  flow. Different ingress RBridges may choose different distribution
  trees for TRILL Data packets in the same VLAN, FGL, and/or multicast
  group. To avoid unnecessary link utilization, distribution trees
  should be pruned based on VLAN and/or FGL and/or multicast
  destination address. If any VLAN, FGL, or multicast group can be sent
  on any tree, for typical fast path hardware, the amount of pruning
  information is multiplied by the number of trees, but there is a
  limited hardware capacity for such pruning information.

  This document specifies an optional facility to restrict the TRILL
  Data packets sent on particular distribution trees by VLAN, FGL,
  and/or multicast group thus reducing the total amount of pruning
  information so that it can more easily be accommodated by fast path
  hardware.






The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection/ballot/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2584/

Template: Required by: RFC 4858, revision: 2/24/2012

Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alia Atlas
Revision: 4/19/2016
Next Step: Revision to answer shepherd review, and
Awaiting  IPR statements from: Weiquo Hao and S. Chatterjee.


(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?

Type: Standard

(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

  TRILL uses distribution trees to deliver multi-destination frames.
  Multiple trees can be used by an ingress RBridge for flows regardless
  of the VLAN, Fine Grained Label (FGL), and/or multicast group of the
  flow. Different ingress RBridges may choose different distribution
  trees for TRILL Data packets in the same VLAN, FGL, and/or multicast
  group. To avoid unnecessary link utilization, distribution trees
  should be pruned based on VLAN and/or FGL and/or multicast
  destination address. If any VLAN, FGL, or multicast group can be sent
  on any tree, for typical fast path hardware, the amount of pruning
  information is multiplied by the number of trees; however, there is a
  limited capacity for such pruning information.

  This document specifies an optional facility to restrict the TRILL
  Data packets sent on particular distribution trees by VLAN, FGL,
  and/or multicast group thus reducing the total amount of pruning
  information so that it can more easily be accommodated by fast path
  hardware.

Working Group Summary

WG had discussion over 2+ years regarding data label based tree selection for multi-destination data.
The working came to a good consensus on this discussion

Document Quality

No known implementation of this technology.
Distribution trees, ECMP, and Fine-Grain Labels (FGL) exist in many implementation,
and some proprietary technology has similar features. 

Shepherd review:  Text and technology
Routing Directorate review:
Document: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-01
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: Jan 07 2015
IETF LC End Date: September 2015
Intended Status: Standard Track

(2) Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Routing WG chairs: Susan Hares and Jon Hudson
RTG-DIR reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli


(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.

1) RTG-DIR reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
2) Shepherd review the document
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07204.html


(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, just the general review.

(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 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.

Donald Eastlake:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06964.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07095.html

Yizhou Li
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06968.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07099.html

H. Chen
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07100.html

Weiquo Hao:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07213.html

S. Chatterjee:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg07211.html

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

1 IPR disclosure filed, before the WG LC
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2584/

No comment during WG LC.

(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? 

Strong.  The Solution was discussed for 2-3 years.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No need for formal review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

(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?



(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 - This specifies new technology.

(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).

IANA is regest to assign 5 new TRILL APPSub-TLV type code
from range less than 255:

Name  of APPSub TLV code              Reference
=========================          ===========

  tbd1  Tree and VLANs                    [this document 3.2.1]
  tbd2  Tree and VLANs Used          [this document 3.2.2]
  tbd3  Tree and FGLs                        [this document 3.2.3]
  tbd4  Tree and FGLs Used              [this document 3.2.4]
  tbd5  Tree and Groups                    [this document 3.2.5]
  tbd6  Tree and Groups Used          [this document 3.2.6]

Update the TRILL Parameters registry as shown below.

        Type  Name            Reference
        ----  ----            ---------

        tbd1  TREE-VLANs    [this document]
        tbd2  TREE-VLAN-USE  [this document]
        tbd3  TREE-FGLs      [this document]
        tbd4  TREE-FGL-USE  [this document]
        tbd5  TREE-GROUPs    [this document]

(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.

No new registries.

(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.

No other reviews.