Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Vendor-Specific RBridge Channel Protocol
draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-01

[Ballot comment]
Could you please expand the text in the security considerations section as to why security properties (integrity, authentication, and encryption since they are not part of RBridge Channel messages except when explicitly added on in the extension draft) were not built in?  I'm assuming it is the limited scope of use for the protocol.  I am glad that options exist to add it in, but wish the text were a bit more encouraging so that would actually happen.  Vendors need to be motivated to provide these options for customers who may want to use them, without that motivation, the features won't be provided.

[Ballot comment]
Could you please expand the text int he security considerations section as to why security properties (integrity, authentication, and encryption since they are not part of RBridge Channel messages except when explicitly added on in the extension draft) were not built in?  I'm assuming it is the limited scope of use for the protocol.  I am glad that options exist to add it in, but wish the text were a bit more encouraging so that would actually happen.  Vendors need to be motivated to provide these options for customers who may want to use them, without that motivation, the features won't be provided.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for answering my DISCUSS question.

I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that the text in the Acknowledgements section is not appropriate. See RFC 7322.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm having trouble understanding what function this specification serves given that the RBridge Channel Protocol registry has a range reserved already for private use and that the document doesn't specify any requirements around vendor-specific protocol semantics. So any implementation of this that needs to interoperate with another implementation will need to do so according to some specification generated by the vendor, and that specification can select a code point from the private use range. What does allocating a single code point for all such vendor-specific protocols achieve, aside from specifying a structured way of conveying the OUI/CID (which seems superfluous anyway for multiple implementations from a single vendor interoperating with each other)?

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

First, in the RBridge Channel Protocols registry on the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry page located at:

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

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Protocol: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Vendor Specific RBridge Channel
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry called Vendor RBridge Channel Error Codes will be created. The new registry is to be on the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry page located at:

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

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined in RFC 8126.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Code Description Reference
---------+-------------------------------+-------------
0 No error [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Message too short [ RFC-to-be ]
2 Unknown OUI/CID [ RFC-to-be ]
3 Unknown Sub-Protocol [ RFC-to-be ]
4 Unknown Sub-Version [ RFC-to-be ]
0x05-0x0F Unassigned
0x10-0xFE Reserved for vendor use [ RFC-to-be ]
0xFF Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> Should the first five values in the new registry be changed as follows:

from 0 to 0x00
from 1 to 0x01
from 2 to 0x02
from 3 to 0x03
from 4 to 0x04

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 2018-03-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel@ietf.org, Susan Hares , akatlas@gmail.com, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL: Vendor Specific TRILL Channel Protocol) 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: Vendor
Specific TRILL Channel Protocol'
  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 2018-03-06. 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


  The IETF TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
  protocol is implemented by devices called TRILL switches or RBridges
  (Routing Bridges). TRILL includes a general mechanism, called RBridge
  Channel, for the transmission of typed messages between RBridges in
  the same campus and between RBridges and end stations on the same
  link. This document specifies a method to send vendor specific
  messages over the RBridge Channel facility.






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

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


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

Shepherd write-up version: 2/24/2012.

(1) RFC type: Proposed standard
status: On header.
Why?

(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

The IETF TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
  protocol is implemented by devices called TRILL switches or RBridges
  (Routing Bridges). TRILL includes a general mechanism, called RBridge
  Channel, for the transmission of typed messages between RBridges in
  the same campus and between RBridges and end stations on the same
  link. This document specifies a method to send vendor specific
  messages over the RBridge Channel facility.

Working Group Summary

Working group pushed for this draft even though
it came at the end of work.  It provides a way for
TRILL vendors to send vendor specific messages.
This feature will allow the vendors to innovate
and then come back to IETF with "baked"
features for standardizing.
Document Quality

No protocol implementations, but it is an

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

(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.

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

No.  This is an extension of an earlier idea discussed by WG at length.
It would be good to get the normal reviews (OPS-DIR,
RTG-DIR, SEC-DIR, and GEN-ART). 

(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.  This is a TRILL mechanisms so normal reviews will be fine.

(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? 

This is a good draft for the WG to end its work on.
It allows vendors to develop new features without
returning immediately to the IETF standardization.

(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://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/-HQ8v6g9G6LOfLbiNwI094H5nFY

Ayan Banerjee
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/XgNgozYhRTNJagX9TEWj11dlYBE

Yizhou Li +  Weiguo Hao
(These two author was on Chinese New Year Holiday during the
end of the WG LC. This author will probably respond within a few days). 

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

no

(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 because the vendors (IPInfusion and Huawei) and some
other vendors want a path forward for additions.

(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 - the push to get this in came from many directions.

(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.

(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?
No changes to exisitng RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

  IANA is requested to allocate TBD for the Vendor Specific RBridge
  Channel Protocol from the range of RBridge Channel protocols
  allocated by Standards Action.

  IANA is requested to establish a registry as follows on the TRILL
  Parameters web page indented under RBridge Channel Error Codes after
  RBridge Channel SubError Codes:

  Registry: Vendor RBridge Channel Error Codes
  Registration Procedures: Standards Action
  Reference: (This document)

          Code      Description                    Reference
          ----      -----------                    ---------
            0      No error                        This document
            1      Message too short              This document
            2      Unknown OUI/CID                This document
            3      Unknown Sub-Protocol            This document
            4      Unknown Sub-Version            This document
        0x05-0x0F  Unassigned                      -
        0x10-0xFE  Reserved for vendor use        This document
          0xFF      Reserved                        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.

IANA is requested to establish a registry as follows on the TRILL
  Parameters web page indented under RBridge Channel Error Codes after
  RBridge Channel SubError Codes:

  Registry: Vendor RBridge Channel Error Codes
  Registration Procedures: Standards Action
  Reference: (This document)

          Code      Description                    Reference
          ----      -----------                    ---------
            0      No error                        This document
            1      Message too short              This document
            2      Unknown OUI/CID                This document
            3      Unknown Sub-Protocol            This document
            4      Unknown Sub-Version            This document
        0x05-0x0F  Unassigned                      -
        0x10-0xFE  Reserved for vendor use        This document
          0xFF      Reserved                        This document

(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 additional reviews needed.