Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions
RFC 5151
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-01-21
|
07 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2018-12-20
|
07 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes procedures and protocol extensions for the use of Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes procedures and protocol extensions for the use of Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling in Multiprotocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) packet networks and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) packet and non-packet networks to support the establishment and maintenance of Label Switched Paths that cross domain boundaries. For the purpose of this document, a domain is considered to be any collection of network elements within a common realm of address space or path computation responsibility. Examples of such domains include Autonomous Systems, Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing areas, and GMPLS overlay networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]') |
|
2017-05-16
|
07 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Arthi Ayyangar" to "Arthi Ayyangar, Adrian Farrel, JP Vasseur" |
|
2015-10-14
|
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Abstain position for Sam Hartman |
|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
|
2008-02-29
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-02-29
|
07 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5151' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-02-28
|
07 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2007-10-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2007-10-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2007-10-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2007-10-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-10-15
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2007-10-15
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2007-10-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2007-10-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2007-10-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2007-10-15
|
07 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
|
2007-09-28
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
|
2007-09-25
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot comment] The security considerations text ended up not being quite strong enough to meet the requirements necessary to clear my discuss. However the problem … [Ballot comment] The security considerations text ended up not being quite strong enough to meet the requirements necessary to clear my discuss. However the problem was my fault; I got a chance to review text that was proposed to the authors and failed to note what is really a minor problem. So I am not blocking. |
|
2007-09-25
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sam Hartman has been changed to Abstain from Discuss by Sam Hartman |
|
2007-09-24
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2007-09-24
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-07.txt |
|
2007-09-06
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-09-06
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
|
2007-09-06
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2007-09-06
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2007-09-06
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
|
2007-09-06
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
|
2007-09-05
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot discuss] This document proposes signaling mechanisms in an inter-domain context for RSVP-TE. Everything I've read about that context suggests that integrity and authentication of … [Ballot discuss] This document proposes signaling mechanisms in an inter-domain context for RSVP-TE. Everything I've read about that context suggests that integrity and authentication of signaling is important. When evaluated under the Internet threat model, it seems that integrity of the signaling protocol is an important mandatory to implement security service. When considered under the requirements of RFC 4107, automated key management should be required for this mechanism. However, I think the authors of this protocol would resist blocking this mechanism on such work. I'm not at all happy with the publication of this mechanism without providing a high quality integrity mechanism with automated key management for RSVP-TE. However we'll probably eventually end up doing that, so we might as well do so now with an IESG note rather than waste a lot of time and end up with the same result. Proposed IESG note: The IESG believes that this specification does not meet the security requirements for current Internet standards. IN particular, when considered under the threat model described in RFC 3552, integrity of the signaling messages is an important security service. RFC 4107 requires that this security service be provided with automated key management. RSVP-TE does not currently provide a mandatory to implement automated key management solution adequate for the needs of this specification. The IESG has chosen to approve this specification despite this defect and encourages the development of robust automated key management for RSVP-TE. |
|
2007-09-05
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sam Hartman |
|
2007-09-04
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2007-09-04
|
07 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
|
2007-09-04
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2007-09-04
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2007-08-30
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Hannes Tschofenig. |
|
2007-08-24
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23 |
|
2007-08-21
|
07 | Sam Hartman | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Sam Hartman |
|
2007-08-17
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] There is ongoing discussion of the concerns raised in the Gen-ART Review by Eric Gray (http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/ draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06-gray.txt). It is not … [Ballot discuss] There is ongoing discussion of the concerns raised in the Gen-ART Review by Eric Gray (http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/ draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06-gray.txt). It is not clear to me that these discussions have reached closure, but it is clear to me that a revised document will be needed when the discussion is concluded. |
|
2007-08-17
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2007-08-16
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2007-08-16
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23 by Cullen Jennings |
|
2007-08-16
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2007-08-16
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2007-08-16
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23 by Ron Bonica |
|
2007-08-14
|
07 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Last Call Comments: **NOTE*** Action #3 has an error it is trying to register a values that are already taken, please give us clarification … IANA Last Call Comments: **NOTE*** Action #3 has an error it is trying to register a values that are already taken, please give us clarification what to do? ******** Action #1: Section 9.1 Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "RSVP TE Parameters - per [RFC4420]" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters sub-registry "Attributes Flags - per [RFC4420]" Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference Flags Path Flags Resv ---+-------------------------+---------+----------+----+----------------- XX + Contiguous LSP + Yes + No + Yes+ [RFC-ccamp-inter- domain-rsvp-te-06] Action #2: Section 9.2 Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "RSVP Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters sub-registry "Error Codes and Values" Error code 2 (Policy control failure) 103 = Inter-domain policy failure [RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06] 104 = Inter-domain explicit route rejected [RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06] Action #3: Section 9.2 Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignmentsv in the "RSVP Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters sub-registry "Error Codes and Values" Error code 24 (Policy control failure) The document is requesting the following: 21 = Contiguous LSP type not supported [RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06] 22 = ERO conflicts with inter-domain signaling method [RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06] BUT both 21 and 22 are existing registrations in the registry. 21 = LSP Segment Protection Failed [RFC4873] 22 = Re-routing limit exceeded [RFC4920] Please advise what to do, change values or overwrite the registrations? |
|
2007-08-02
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
|
2007-08-02
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
|
2007-08-02
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2007-08-02
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23 by Ross Callon |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2007-08-01
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2007-06-15
|
07 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
|
2007-04-30
|
07 | Ross Callon | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2007-04-30
|
07 | Ross Callon | Note field has been cleared by Ross Callon |
|
2007-04-30
|
07 | Ross Callon | Proto Writeup by Deborah Brungard: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Deborah Brungard (dbrungard@att.com) … Proto Writeup by Deborah Brungard: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Deborah Brungard (dbrungard@att.com) 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? Yes (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Yes Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. None have been filed. (1.e) 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? WG agrees. (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. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Satisfies. One reference comment (see 1.h). 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? Yes. 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? One reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching, which should be progressed with this one to ensure the RFC Ed can sort out. draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching has finished WG Last Call and it is Standards Track. 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]. No. (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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. Yes to all above. 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? None required. (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? Not applicable. (1.k) 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 This document describes procedures and protocol extensions for the use of Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) packet networks and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) packet and non-packet networks to support the establishment and maintenance of Label Switched Paths that cross domain boundaries. Working Group Summary The Working Group had consensus on this document. Document Quality This document has been implemented. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Deborah Brungard Who is the Responsible Area Director(s)? Ross Callon, David Ward. Is an IANA expert needed? No. |
|
2007-04-30
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Note]: 'Please progress this I-D in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-06.txt and draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-05.txt' added by Ross Callon |
|
2007-04-30
|
07 | Ross Callon | Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested |
|
2007-04-23
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt |
|
2007-03-01
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-05.txt |
|
2007-01-09
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04.txt |
|
2006-03-06
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-03.txt |
|
2005-10-03
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt |
|
2005-07-19
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-01.txt |
|
2005-02-09
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-00.txt |