Skip to main content

Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3
RFC 5329

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
13 (System) Notify list changed from ospf-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
13 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2008-09-17
13 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2008-09-17
13 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5329' added by Cindy Morgan
2008-09-16
13 (System) RFC published
2008-08-04
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-08-04
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-08-04
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-08-01
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-08-01
13 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-31
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-07-31
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-07-31
13 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-07-31
13 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-07-31
13 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2008-06-13
13 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2008-06-12
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-13.txt
2008-06-07
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-12.txt
2008-06-06
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Rob Austein.
2008-06-06
13 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-06-05
2008-06-05
13 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-06-05
13 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-06-05
13 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
I am missing any iformation concerning manageability. Do the new extensions to OSPF for intra-area Traffic Engineering any extra configuration, is there a …
[Ballot discuss]
I am missing any iformation concerning manageability. Do the new extensions to OSPF for intra-area Traffic Engineering any extra configuration, is there a need for new MIB objects, maybe extensions of the existing OSPF MIB modules? I think that this document should include a list of any configuration or statistics objects that must be part of the instrumentation, so that the future MIB work or other management interfaces can use them. Also, if there are any events like state changes that need to be reflected in notifications they should also be mentioned here.
2008-06-05
13 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
I am missing any iformation concerning manageability. Do the new extensions to OSPF for intra-area Traffic Engineering any extra configuration, is there a …
[Ballot discuss]
I am missing any iformation concerning manageability. Do the new extensions to OSPF for intra-area Traffic Engineering any extra configuration, is there a need for new MIB objects, maybe extensions of the existing OSPF MIB modules? I think that this document should include a list of any configuration or statistics objects that must be part of the instrumentation, so that the future MIB work or other management interfaces can use them. Also, if there are any events like state changes that need to be reeflected in notifications they should also be mentioned here.
2008-06-05
13 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-06-04
13 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-06-04
13 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-06-04
13 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot comment]
Section 4:
> All other sub-TLVs defined in this document MAY occur at
> most once in a Link TLV.

RFC 2119 "MAY" …
[Ballot comment]
Section 4:
> All other sub-TLVs defined in this document MAY occur at
> most once in a Link TLV.

RFC 2119 "MAY" means something that is optional (you can decide
not to do it). Probably "MUST NOT occur more than once" is meant
here.

Reference [OSPFV3] should point to draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update
instead of RFC 2740?
2008-06-04
13 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-06-04
13 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-06-04
13 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-06-04
13 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
Rob Austein's secdir review noted two issues that really should get addressed.

(1) The ASCII art describing the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA does not match …
[Ballot comment]
Rob Austein's secdir review noted two issues that really should get addressed.

(1) The ASCII art describing the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA does not match
  the text.  The text looks reasonable, but the ASCII art appears to
  have the U and S2 bits of the LSA type field swapped -- should be
  "|1|0|1|", not "|0|1|1|".

(2) The security considerations correctly points out that the security
  considerations from the base OSPFv3 protocol apply, but do not
  mention that the security considerations from the base traffic
  engineering extensions specification (RFC 3630) also apply.  Please
  add a reference to [TE] in the security considerations section.
2008-06-04
13 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
Rob Austein's secdir review noted two minor issues that really should get addressed:

(1) The security considerations correctly points out that the security …
[Ballot comment]
Rob Austein's secdir review noted two minor issues that really should get addressed:

(1) The security considerations correctly points out that the security
  considerations from the base OSPFv3 protocol apply, but do not
  mention that the security considerations from the base traffic
  engineering extensions specification (RFC 3630) also apply.  Please
  add a reference to [TE] in the security considerations section.

(2) The ASCII art describing the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA does not match
  the text.  The text looks reasonable, but the ASCII art appears to
  have the U and S2 bits of the LSA type field swapped -- should be
  "|1|0|1|", not "|0|1|1|".
2008-06-04
13 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-06-03
13 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-06-03
13 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-06-03
13 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Section 3 does not specify what type of IPv6 address is legal or
illegal for the TLV defined in there. Other TLV definitions …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3 does not specify what type of IPv6 address is legal or
illegal for the TLV defined in there. Other TLV definitions in this
document do that. Worth adding the same statement here about
link-local addresses not being legal?
2008-06-03
13 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-06-02
13 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-05-29
13 David Ward Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-06-05 by David Ward
2008-05-29
13 David Ward State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by David Ward
2008-05-29
13 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for David Ward
2008-05-29
13 David Ward Ballot has been issued by David Ward
2008-05-29
13 David Ward Created "Approve" ballot
2008-05-29
13 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2008-05-29
13 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that three actions must be completed.

First, in the Open Shortest Path First v3 …
IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that three actions must be completed.

First, in the Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters

in the LSA Function Code registry, a single value needs to be added:

LSA Function Code LS Type Description
----------------- ----------------------------------
tbd OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA

IANA notes that the document specifically requests that the value of 10 be
assigned to this value in the registry.

Second, in the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs

in the Top level Types in TE LSAs registry, the currently temporary assignment of value 3 to Router IPv6 Address needs to be made permanent:

Registry:
Value Top Level Types
----------- ----------------------------------
3 Router IPv6 Address

Third, in the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs

in the Sub-registry named Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2), three registrations that were previously marked TEMPORARY should now be made permanent. These three assignments will be:

Value Sub-TLV
----------- ------------------------------------------------------
18 Neighbor ID
19 Local Interface IPv6 Address
20 Remote Interface IPv6 Address

IANA understands these three actions to be the only tasks to be completed upon approval of this document.
2008-05-22
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein
2008-05-22
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein
2008-05-20
13 Ross Callon
PROTO writeup by Abhay Roy:

Here is the Proto writeup for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-11.txt

Regards,
-Abhay


  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the …
PROTO writeup by Abhay Roy:

Here is the Proto writeup for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-11.txt

Regards,
-Abhay


  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
      Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
      to forward to the IESG for publication?

      Yes

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
      key non-WG members?

      Yes

      Do you have any concerns about the depth or
      breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

      No

  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
      particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
      complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

      No

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
      you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
      perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
      or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
      if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
      indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns in the write-up.

      No

  5. 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?

      This is a counter part of the OSPFv2 version of TE
      extensions and bears striking similarities to it. There
      are two stack vendor implementations so far.

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict
      in separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

      No

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all
      of the ID Checklist items ?

idnits 2.08.10

tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-11.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

      No issues found here.

      No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?

      Yes

      Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
      also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note
      here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
      references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs
      are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

      No

  9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard,
      Informational?)

      Proposed Standard

  10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement
      includes a write-up section with the following sections:

    * Technical Summary
      The OSPFv3 TE extensions build upon OSPFv2 TE extensions to
      support IPv6 networks. It adds a new LSA type and some new
      Sub-TLVs which are applicable to IPv6 networks. Rest of the
      applicability is similar to OSPFv2 TE.

    * Working Group Summary
      The first version of the draft came in 2002 and it didn't get any
      push for 3 years. Acee Lindem took over the draft and handled all
      the queries and updates. ASON requirements slowed down the
      progress on this document. It was decided that ASON requirements
      apply to OSPFv2 also, and hence should be handled separately.

    * Protocol Quality
      The OSPFv3 TE extensions have similar protocol quality as OSPFv2
      TE extensions. There are two known implementations at this time.
2008-05-15
13 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-05-15
13 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-05-15
13 David Ward State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD is watching by David Ward
2008-05-15
13 David Ward Last Call was requested by David Ward
2008-05-15
13 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-05-15
13 (System) Last call text was added
2008-05-15
13 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-05-09
13 David Ward State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by David Ward
2008-05-09
13 David Ward Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2008-04-17
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-11.txt
2008-03-26
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt
2008-03-24
13 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2008-03-24
13 (System) Document has expired
2007-11-20
13 Bill Fenner Just noticed that I was still listed as AD for this doc.
2007-11-20
13 Bill Fenner Responsible AD has been changed to David Ward from Bill Fenner
2007-09-22
13 (System) State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system
2007-09-21
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-09.txt
2007-07-07
13 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2007-07-07
13 (System) Document has expired
2007-01-04
13 (System) State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system
2007-01-03
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-08.txt
2006-11-06
13 (System) State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system
2006-11-06
13 (System) Document has expired
2006-04-26
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt
2006-04-17
13 Bill Fenner State Change Notice email list have been change to ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org from <john.moy@sycamorenet.com>, <acee@redback.com>, <rohit@utstar.com>
2006-04-17
13 Bill Fenner Shepherding AD has been changed to Bill Fenner from Alex Zinin
2005-10-21
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-06.txt
2005-05-20
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-05.txt
2005-03-22
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-04.txt
2005-02-21
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-03.txt
2004-07-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02.txt
2003-08-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-01.txt
2003-06-10
13 Alex Zinin Draft Added by Zinin, Alex
2003-04-17
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-00.txt