Framework for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Control of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy/Synchronous Optical Networking (SDH/SONET) Networks
RFC 4257

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    ccamp mailing list <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, 
    ccamp chair <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Framework for GMPLS-based Control of 
         SDH/SONET Networks' to Informational RFC 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Framework for GMPLS-based Control of SDH/SONET Networks '
   <draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-06.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane 
Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Alex Zinin and Ross Callon.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-06.txt

Technical Summary
 
   GMPLS consists of a suite of protocol extensions to MPLS to make 
   these protocols more generally applicable, to include - for example
   - control of non-packet based switching, and particularly, optical 
   switching.  One area of prime consideration is to use Generalized 
   MPLS (GMPLS) protocols in upgrading the control plane of optical 
   transport networks.  This document illustrates this process by 
   describing those extensions to GMPLS protocols that are directed 
   towards controlling SDH/SONET networks.  SDH/SONET networks make 
   very good examples of this process since they possess a rich 
   multiplex structure, a variety of protection/restoration options, 
   are well defined, and are widely deployed. The document discusses 
   extensions to GMPLS routing protocols to disseminate information 
   needed in transport path computation and network operations, 
   together with the extensions to GMPLS label distribution protocols 
   needed for the provisioning of transport circuits. New capabilities 
   that an GMPLS control plane would bring to SDH/SONET networks, such 
   as new restoration methods and multi-layer circuit establishment, 
   are also discussed.  
 
Working Group Summary
 
   The CCAMP WG had a consensus on advancing this document.
 
Protocol Quality
 
   The document has been reviewed by the RTG area directorate and Alex Zinin.

RFC Editor Note

Section 1.1 para 2

OLD
   An MPLS network consists of MPLS nodes called Label Switch Routers
   (LSRs) connected via circuits called Label Switched Paths (LSPs). An
   LSP is unidirectional and could be of several different types such
   as point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and multipoint-to-point.
NEW
   An MPLS network consists of MPLS nodes called Label Switch Routers
   (LSRs) connected via Label Switched Paths (LSPs). An
   LSP is unidirectional and could be of several different types such
   as point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and multipoint-to-point.
 
Replace text in section 7 (Security Considerations) with the following.

 NEW:

  The use of a control plane to provision connectivity through a SONET/SDH
  network shifts the security burden significantly from the management plane
  to the control plane. Before the introduction of a control plane, the
  communications that had to be secured were between the management stations
  (Element Management Systems or Network Management Systems) and each
  network element that participated in the network connection. After the
  introduction of the control plane, the only management plane communication
  that needs to be secured is that to the head-end (ingress) network node as
  the end-to-end service is requested. On the other hand, the control plane
  introduces a new requirement to secure signaling and routing
  communications between adjacent nodes in the network plane.

  The security risk from impersonated management stations is significantly
  reduced by the use of a control plane. In particular, where unsecure
  versions of network management protocols such as SNMP versions 1 and 2
  were popular configuration tools in transport networks, the use of a
  control plane may significantly reduce the security risk of malicious and
  false assignment of network resources that could cause the interception or
  disruption of data traffic.

  On the other hand, the control plane may increase the number of security
  relationships that each network node must maintain. Instead of a single
  security relationship with its management element, each network node must
  now maintain a security relationship with each of its signaling and
  routing neighbors in the control plane.

  There is a strong requirement for singaling and control plane exchanges to
  be secured, and any protocols proposed for this purpose must be capable of
  secure message exchanges. This is already the case for the existing GMPLS
  routing and signaling protocols.