GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
RFC 5467

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

NOTE: Because this is not a Standards Track document, the values
assigned will be taken from the Expert Review space (likely
120-122).

Class
Number Class Name Reference
------ ----------------------- ---------
TBD UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC [RFC-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01]
Class Types or C-Types:

1 Reserved [RFC2205]
2 Int-serv Flowspec [RFC2210]
3 Deprecated [IESG]
4 SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]


TBD UPSTREAM_TSPEC [RFC-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01]
Class Types or C-Types:

2 Int-serv [RFC2210]
3 Deprecated [IESG]
4 SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC [RFC4606]
5 G.709 [RFC4328]

TBD UPSTREAM_ADSPEC [RFC-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01]

Class Types or C-Types:

2 Int-serv [RFC2210]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

[Ballot discuss]
1. I think this document should have been WG last called in TSVWG also before being progressed. I also fail to see any IETF last call on this document so TSVWG participants have been given no warning or fair opportunity to comment about this document. The reason I bring this up is that objects like UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC looks like it could have applicability for also classic RSVP usage. It needs to be clear if this has any or no applicability for Intserv usage etc.

I therefore request an IETF last call to give my RSVP experts an opportunity to review this extension.

2. Section 3:

I am missing a reference to the formal language used to express the format. Can you please add one? Is this having the same issue as earlier that the definition of the actual used notation do not exist and is under construction?

[Ballot comment]
Scott Brim raised two concerns in his Gen-ART Review.  In additon,
  Scott pointed out some references that were out of date.  The two
  concerns are repeated below.

  Section 2.1.1 says:
  >
  > The contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST be constructed
  > using a consistent format and procedures used to construct the
  > FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or
  > [RFC4328].
  >
  This sentence is a little funky.  Here are two possible changes:

    ... using a format and procedures consistent with those used to
    construct the FLOWSPEC ...

    ... using the same format and procedures used to construct the
    FLOWSPEC ...

  Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 have the same issue.

  Section 2.2.1 says:
  >
  > When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the
  > ingress MAY determine that the original reservation is
  > insufficient to satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the
  > ingress MAY issue a Path message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
  > object to modify the resources requested for the upstream traffic
  > flow. This modification might require the LSP to be re-routed, and
  > in extreme cases might result in the LSP being torn down when
  > sufficient resources are not available.
  >
  I'm ignorant here but since both directions are being set up
  simultaneously, is a teardown appropriate at this point?

Please note that the authors propose these protocol extensions as
experimental with the support of the CCAMP working group. The logic
is that, while the protocol extensions have full support of the
working group, there is no immediate intention to build or deploy
product containing these features.

> (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 is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

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

This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received
some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

The document has had sufficient review for an Experimental RFC.

> (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. 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.

The document is sound.
No IPR disclosures 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?

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

> (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. No discontent.

> (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. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

All checks made.

> (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 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 suggest a
> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. 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?

IANA section is OK.

> (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?

BNF checked by hand.
Note that this BNF follows the de facto standard for RSVP and RSVP-TE
BNF as presented in RFC 2205, RFC 3209, and RFC 3473. No formal
definition of this BNF exists and none is deemed necessary by the CCAMP
or MPLS working groups.

> (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
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.

This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS Asymmetric
Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented
approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
original RSVP model for the transport of traffic related parameters.
The procedures described in this document are experimental.

> Working Group Summary
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?

Please note that the authors propose these protocol extensions as
experimental with the support of the CCAMP working group. The logic
is that, while the protocol extensions have full support of the
working group, there is no immediate intention to build or deploy
product containing these features.

> Document Quality
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
> review, on what date was the request posted?

There are no implementations of these protocol extensions and no
immediate plans for implementation.