Multi-Segment Pseudowires in Passive Optical Networks
draft-li-pwe3-ms-pw-pon-06

[Ballot discuss]
The document describes (also) the usage of OMCI for configuring end-to-end MPLS PWs over G-PON or XG-PON.  However the Security Considerations section talks only about the security mechanisms of G-PON and XG-PON ('as good as those provided in a well secured MPLS PSN') and says nothing about the security mechanisms of OMCI. Are these also 'as good' as the ones used to manage MPLS networks?

[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to push Stephen's point to a DISCUSS at least until the telechat, though I am unwilling to continue this discussion past the telechat unless other ADs are really on board:

I don't understand why this document is being put forward for IESG endorsement. It appears to be deployment instructions for a particular L2 network configuration, which doesn't seem terribly relevant to the IETF. Further, there is a patent disclosed (by the company of two out of the three authors) where that disclosure does not say how it would apply to a non-standard. It's not clear to my why this is relevant to the IETF community in the first place (the obvious WG for it had no interest in the document), and given the disclosure, I don't see clear benefit to the community to publish it.

[Ballot comment]
The IPR declaration refers to "the standard" a couple of times
so, since this is targetted at informational, its not possible
for me to know if the stated terms apply or not. (Yet again;-)

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Multisegment Pseudowires in Passive Optical Networks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Multisegment Pseudowires in Passive Optical Networks'
  as an 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 2011-06-28. 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 the application of MPLS multi-segment
pseudowires (MS-PWs) in a dual-technology environment comprising a
Passive Optical Network (PON) and an MPLS Packet Switched Network
(PSN).

PON technology may be used in mobile backhaul networks to support the
end segments closest to the aggregation devices.  In these cases,
there may be a very large number of PW Terminating Provider Edge
nodes (T-PEs).  The MPLS control plane could be used to provision
these end segments, but support for the necessary protocols would
complicate the management of the T-PEs and would significantly
increase their expense.  Alternatively, static, or management plane,
configuration could be used to configure the end segments, but the
very large number of such segments in a PON places a very heavy
burden on the network manager.

This document describes how to set up the end segment of an end-to-
end MPLS PW over a Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Network (GPON)
using the GPON management protocol, Optical Network Termination
Management and Control Interface (OMCI).  This simplifies and speeds
up PW provisioning.

This document also shows how a MS-PW may be constructed from an end
segment supported over a PON, and stitched to one or more segments
supported over an MPLS PSN.



The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pwe3-ms-pw-pon/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pwe3-ms-pw-pon/


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

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1438/

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Adrian Farrel (adrian.farrel@huawei.com) is the Document Shepherd.
He is also a document author. He has read the document and believes
it is ready for advancement for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

The document has been discussed by the PWE3 working group in response
to a specific request for review by the AD and WG chairs.

The ideas in the document have also benefited from wide discussion in
the Broadband Forum.

The Shepherd believes that the breadth and depth of review is
adequate.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
      internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

No concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The PWE3 community does not appear to have any objections to this
work. However, there is not much specific support for the work. For
exactly this reason, this I-D is being brought forward as AD Sponsored.

(1.f) 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
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats of discontent.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
      enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
      formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
      type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative? 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 strategy for their
      completion? Are there normative references that are downward
      references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
      for them [RFC3967].

References are split. No downrefs.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
      the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
      IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

No IANA action is requested.
A Null IANA section is included.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
      automated checker?

No such formal language is used.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes the application of MPLS multi-segment
  pseudowires (MS-PWs) in a dual-technology environment comprising a
  Passive Optical Network (PON) and an MPLS Packet Switched Network
  (PSN).

  PON technology may be used in mobile backhaul networks to support the
  end segments closest to the aggregation devices.  In these cases,
  there may be a very large number of PW Terminating Provider Edge
  nodes (T-PEs).  The MPLS control plane could be used to provision
  these end segments, but support for the necessary protocols would
  complicate the management of the T-PEs and would significantly
  increase their expense.  Alternatively, static, or management plane,
  configuration could be used to configure the end segments, but the
  very large number of such segments in a PON places a very heavy
  burden on the network manager.

  This document describes how to set up the end segment of an end-to-
  end MPLS PW over a Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Network (GPON)
  using the GPON management protocol, Optical Network Termination
  Management and Control Interface (OMCI).  This simplifies and speeds
  up PW provisioning.

  This document also shows how a MS-PW may be constructed from an end
  segment supported over a PON, and stitched to one or more segments
  supported over an MPLS PSN.

Working Group Summary

  The PWE3 working group has had this work introduced on the mailing
  list and at two IETF meetings. Additionally, the WG was specifically
  requested to review the document on the understanding that a
  request had been made for AD Sponsorship.

  The WG concluded that although the draft is directly related to the
  charter and work of the WG, there was not sufficient interest within
  the WG to adopt the draft as a WG document. However, the WG were
  asked and did not object to the draft being advanced as AD Sponsored.

  Note that an IPR disclosure has been submitted for this document.

Document Quality

  This is an informational document with no implementation specifics.
  There are on-going discussions with operators about following the
  deployment models shown in this document.