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 |