A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks
RFC 5921
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-12-20 |
12 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document specifies an architectural framework for the application of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) to the … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document specifies an architectural framework for the application of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) to the construction of packet-switched transport networks. It describes a common set of protocol functions -- the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) -- that supports the operational models and capabilities typical of such networks, including signaled or explicitly provisioned bidirectional connection-oriented paths, protection and restoration mechanisms, comprehensive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions, and network operation in the absence of a dynamic control plane or IP forwarding support. Some of these functions are defined in existing MPLS specifications, while others require extensions to existing specifications to meet the requirements of the MPLS-TP. This document defines the subset of the MPLS-TP applicable in general and to point-to-point transport paths. The remaining subset, applicable specifically to point-to-multipoint transport paths, is outside the scope of this document. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.') |
2015-10-14 |
12 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
2010-07-09 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-07-09 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5921' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-07-09 |
12 | (System) | RFC published |
2010-05-24 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-05-24 |
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2010-05-24 |
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-05-24 |
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-05-24 |
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2010-05-24 |
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-05-24 |
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2010-05-23 |
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
2010-05-21 |
12 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-05-20 |
2010-05-20 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-05-20 |
12 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-05-20 |
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] (with editorial updates) Before approving this document I would like to make a few clarifications concerning the following in Section 3.14 Network Management: … [Ballot discuss] (with editorial updates) Before approving this document I would like to make a few clarifications concerning the following in Section 3.14 Network Management: > The Network Management System (NMS) is used to provision and manage an end-to-end connection across a network where some segments are created/managed by, for example, Netconf [RFC4741] or SNMP [RFC3411] and other segments by XML or CORBA interfaces. Maintenance operations are run on a connection (LSP or PW) in a manner that is independent of the provisioning mechanism. An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management interface. 1. From section 1.1 we get that using an NMS for provisioning is just one option, another being the usage af an CLI. Consequently I think that this section should say 'The Network Management System (NMS) can be used' rahter than 'The Network Management System (NMS) is used ' 2. Mentioning XML here is quite inconsistent - it's a language to represent information and not a protocol or framework for management as SNMP, Netconf, or CORBA. Netconf is already working with XML actually. I suggest to drop mentioning XML here. 3. I suggest to re-write the last sentence as a positive statement: s/An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management interface./An MPLS-TP NE is required to offer at least one standard management interface for interoperable management./ |
2010-05-20 |
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] Before approving this document I would like to make a couple of clarifications concerning the following in Section 3.14 Network Management: > The … [Ballot discuss] Before approving this document I would like to make a couple of clarifications concerning the following in Section 3.14 Network Management: > The Network Management System (NMS) is used to provision and manage an end-to-end connection across a network where some segments are created/managed by, for example, Netconf [RFC4741] or SNMP [RFC3411] and other segments by XML or CORBA interfaces. Maintenance operations are run on a connection (LSP or PW) in a manner that is independent of the provisioning mechanism. An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management interface. 1. From section 1.1 we get that using an NMS for provisioning is just one option, another being the usage af an CLI. Consequently I think that this section should say 'The Network Management System (NMS) can be used' rahter than 'The Network Management System (NMS) is used ' 2. Mentioning XML here is quite inconsistent - it's a language to represent information and not a protocol or framework for management as SNMP, Netconf, or CORBA. Netconf is already working with XML actually. I suggest to drop mentioning XML here. 3. I suggest to re-write the last sentence as a positive statement: s/An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one standard management interface./An MPLS-TP is required to offer at least one standard management interface for interoperable management./ |
2010-05-20 |
12 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
2010-05-20 |
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-05-19 |
12 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I'm just asking for a reference: The 1st sentence in the security considerations is: The introduction of MPLS-TP into transport networks means that … [Ballot comment] I'm just asking for a reference: The 1st sentence in the security considerations is: The introduction of MPLS-TP into transport networks means that the security considerations applicable to both MPLS and PWE3 apply to those transport networks. Can we add references for MPLS and PWE3? Maybe RFC 3031 for MPLS and RFC 3985 for PWE3? So it reads: The introduction of MPLS-TP into transport networks means that the security considerations applicable to both MPLS [RFC3985] and PWE3 [RFC3301] apply to those transport networks. |
2010-05-19 |
12 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
2010-05-19 |
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2010-05-19 |
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-05-16 |
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-05-06 |
12 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant |
2010-05-06 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
2010-05-06 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-05-20 by Adrian Farrel |
2010-05-06 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2010-05-06 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel |
2010-05-06 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-05-05 |
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-05-05 |
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-12.txt |
2010-05-03 |
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom. |
2010-04-22 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-05-06 by Cindy Morgan |
2010-04-22 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-05-06 by Adrian Farrel |
2010-04-22 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel |
2010-04-21 |
12 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2010-04-13 |
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2010-04-09 |
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2010-04-09 |
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2010-04-07 |
12 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2010-04-07 |
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2010-04-07 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel |
2010-04-07 |
12 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2010-04-07 |
12 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2010-04-07 |
12 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2010-04-07 |
12 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel |
2010-04-06 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | The MPLS WG requests that: A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11 is published as an informational RFC with IETF consensus. > … The MPLS WG requests that: A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11 is published as an informational RFC with IETF consensus. > (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? Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd. He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded 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? The document has been reviewed in - mpls, ccamp and pwe3 working groups - the ITU-T MPLS-TP Ad Hoc Team - the ITU-T SG15, Q9, Q10, Q12 and Q14. The shephered is convinced that this is sufficient review for this framework document. > (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. > (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. No such concerns. There is no IPR claim for this draft. > (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? The mpls-tp project is a joint project between IEIT and ITU-T, this document has been on focus when we sorted out differences between IETF and ITU-T perspectives. The shepherd is not aware of any unresolved issues. > (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 or extreme discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist > 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? Checks are almost clean. There is one instance of a 72 charaacter line, this will be fixed in the update after the IETF last call. > (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 are correctly split. > (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 [RFC5226]. 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? There are no IANA actions requested by this document. > (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? No such formal language. > (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 1.1. Motivation and Background The document describes an architectural framework to use MPLS for packet-switched transport networks. It specifies a set of protocol functions that meet the requirements in [RFC5654]. These protocol functions constitute a MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) for point-to-point transport paths. The remaining MPLS-TP functions, applicable specifically to point-to- multipoint transport paths, are outside the scope of this document. Optical transport infrastructure, e.g. SONET/SDH and OTN are known to provide reliable functionality and operational simplicity. It is the intention that the set of protocol specifications produced by the MPLS-TP project shall provide the same level of reliability and simplicity Working Group Summary Since the document is an output from the MPLS-TP project it is the joint output of several IETF working groups and Qustion 9, 10, 12 and 14 of ITU-T SG15. Document Quality The document is well reviewed in all the groups mentioned above. |
2010-04-06 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2010-04-06 |
12 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the Document Shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-04-02 |
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11.txt |
2010-02-04 |
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-10.txt |
2010-01-29 |
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-09.txt |
2010-01-22 |
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-08.txt |
2009-12-22 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07.txt |
2009-10-16 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-06.txt |
2009-09-25 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-05.txt |
2009-09-11 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-04.txt |
2009-08-28 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-03.txt |
2009-07-10 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-02.txt |
2009-06-30 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-01.txt |
2009-05-31 |
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2009-02-11 |
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: ECI Telecom Ltd.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-00 | |
2008-11-28 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-00.txt |