Analysis of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)
RFC 4428
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) Yes
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
In draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-04.txt (Informational RFC) I am surpsied to (all of a sudden) see (SNMP show up in the Security Considerations Section. The statement is not incorrect, but the reference to (SNMP) in paranthesis seems weird given the content of the document.
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology, overall: I am struggling with the definition of "protection" and "recovery." Normal English usage is clearly not the intent. I do not know anything about the G-series of ITU Recommendations, and I do not plan to study them for this ballot. So, maybe I am not part of the intended audience of this document. Yet, I think all readers would be served by a little bit of overview at the very beginning of this document. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology, Section 2, 1st paragraph: Please drop the tail of the last sentence. (" that are under consideration by the CCAMP Working Group" is not needed or useful at this stage.) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology, Section 4.13: Please spell out NMS/EMS. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology, references: The question marks in [G.806] and [G.808.1] need to be cleaned up.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Discuss cleared because Alex points out that these messages will be carried in existing protocols.
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
All three documents are missing an IANA Considerations section.
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection
In draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-04.txt, Section 7, the draft says: Hierarchies are used to build scalable complex systems. Abstraction is used as a mechanism to build large networks or as a technique for enforcing technology, topological or administrative boundaries. The same hierarchical concept can be applied to control the network survivability. In general, it is expected that the recovery action is taken by the recoverable LSP/span closest to the failure in order to avoid the multiplication of recovery actions. Moreover, recovery hierarchies can be also bound to control plane logical partitions (e.g. administrative or topological boundaries). Each of them may apply different recovery mechanisms. How does abstraction accomplish enforcement of boundaries? What does network survivability mean here? In brief, the commonly accepted ideas are generally that the lower layers can provide coarse but faster recovery while the higher layers can provide finer but slower recovery. Moreover, it is also desirable to avoid similar layers with functional overlaps to optimize network resource utilization and processing overhead. In this context, this section intends to analyze these hierarchical aspects including the physical (passive) layer(s). What does "it is also desirable to avoid similar layers with functional overlaps to optimize network resource utilization and processsing overhead" mean?
(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) No Objection