Skip to main content

Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions
RFC 6002

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Magnus Westerlund
2010-10-11
04 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-11
04 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6002' by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-10
04 (System) RFC published
2010-02-19
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-02-19
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-02-19
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-02-19
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-02-19
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-02-19
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-02-19
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-02-19
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-02-19
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-02-19
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2010-02-19
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund
2010-02-19
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-02-18
2010-02-18
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-02-18
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-04.txt
2010-02-18
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-02-18
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2010-02-18
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-02-18
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-02-18
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2010-02-18
04 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.2:

Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a
        Path message being larger than a …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.2:

Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a
        Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.
        See section 4.4 for an example of how this case may be handled.

This is likely a trivial discuss to resolve. However, I do like to know what the recommendation is on handling fragmentation is. But the reference points into the void. So please fix the reference and I will review the actual text you are pointing on. If you don't have anything on how to handle fragmentation I would like to discuss the necessity for it.
2010-02-18
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2010-02-17
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2010-02-17
04 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-02-16
04 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-02-16
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-02-16
04 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
Nevil Brownlee made the following comment in his OPS-DIR review:

'The text: section 3.3 says: "As such the formats of the other label …
[Ballot comment]
Nevil Brownlee made the following comment in his OPS-DIR review:

'The text: section 3.3 says: "As such the formats of the other label related objects are also impacted."
It doesn't say anything about how they'd be impacted, and it's not obvious to me why there should be any such impact.
Maybe a few words to clarify that would be useful?'

I believe that Nevil is correct and the impact on the format of other label related objects is unclear.
2010-02-16
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-02-16
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-02-14
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-02-14
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object

  The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate
  that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is …
[Ballot comment]
3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object

  The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate
  that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used with the
  associated LSP.  The format of the Generalized Channel_Set
  LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST
  object

But Section 3.2 says that it is "based on" the latter?

  and uses a C-Type of TBA.

3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object

  The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always
  be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and has the following format:

Question: how can one determine size of a Channel_Set Sub-Object?
2010-02-14
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2010-02-05
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2010-02-05
04 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel
2010-02-05
04 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2010-02-05
04 Adrian Farrel State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel
2010-02-05
04 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-02-18 by Adrian Farrel
2010-02-05
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-01-31
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2010-01-31
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2010-01-26
04 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment
in the "Switching Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters
Sub-registry:

Value Type …
IANA comments:

Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment
in the "Switching Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters
Sub-registry:

Value Type Reference
-------- | -------------------------------------- | ---------
TBD (125, if available) | Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) |
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03]


Action #2:

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

In value 16, RSVP_LABEL, add new C-type
TBD (4, if available) Generalized Channel_Set [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03]

In value 19, LABEL_REQUEST, add new C-type
TBD (5, if available) Generalized Channel_Set [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03]
2010-01-22
04 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-01-22
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-22
04 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel
2010-01-22
04 Adrian Farrel State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2010-01-22
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-01-22
04 (System) Last call text was added
2010-01-22
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-01-20
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-01-20
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03.txt
2010-01-17
04 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2010-01-17
04 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel
2010-01-13
04 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel
2010-01-04
04 Amy Vezza
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt

Intended status: Proposed Standard

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of …
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt

Intended status: Proposed Standard

(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?

Deborah Brungard is the document shepherd.
She 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?

The I-D has had a good level of discussion and review.

(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.

No concerns. No IPR disclosures 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 consensus is solid.

(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.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/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 [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?

The IANA section looks good.

(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 formal language is used.

(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 describes two technology-independent extensions to
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. The first extension
defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching Capable. Data
Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to support switching of
the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces.
The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and
updates related objects. The new label is called the Generalized
Channel_Set Label and allows more than one data plane label to be
controlled as part of an LSP.

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?

No.

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 known implementations, but it is expected that several
vendors plan to implement.
2010-01-04
04 Amy Vezza Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested
2010-01-04
04 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Amy Vezza
2009-10-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt
2009-08-29
04 (System) Document has expired
2009-02-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-01.txt
2008-08-08
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt