Skip to main content

Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)
RFC 6060

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2011-03-09
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-03-09
06 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6060'
2011-03-07
06 (System) RFC published
2010-10-19
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-10-19
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-10-19
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-10-18
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-10-18
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-10-14
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-13
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-10-13
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-10-13
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-10-13
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-10-13
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-10-13
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2010-10-10
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder.
2010-10-07
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-07
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk
2010-10-07
06 Cindy Morgan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-07
06 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
I had a general problem associating the new values requested from IANA in section 7 with the various text in
the document.  I …
[Ballot discuss]
I had a general problem associating the new values requested from IANA in section 7 with the various text in
the document.  I suspect this will mostly be resolved by the RFC Editor, but have one specific instance I would
like the authors to review.

Based on the text in section 5.1.2, I expected the destination bridge to generate a PathErr message with the
newly assigned error value "PBB-TE Ethernet Label VID allocation failure".  However, the text explicitly cites
error value (9), "MPLS Label allocation failure", and the newly assigned error value is never mentioned in the document.

Is this text correct as it stands?  If so, where is the newly assigned error message used?
2010-10-07
06 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
I had a general problem associating the new values assigned in section 7 with the various text in the document.
I suspect this …
[Ballot discuss]
I had a general problem associating the new values assigned in section 7 with the various text in the document.
I suspect this will mostly be resolved by the RFC Editor, but have one specific instance I would like the authors to
review.

Based on the text in section 5.1.2, I expected the destination bridge to generate a PathErr message with the
newly assigned error value "PBB-TE Ethernet Label VID allocation failure".  However, the text explicitly cites
error value (9), "MPLS Label allocation failure", and the newly assigned error value is never mentioned in the document.

Is this text correct as it stands?  If so, where is the newly assigned error message used?
2010-10-07
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-10-07
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sean Turner
2010-10-06
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-10-06
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
1) Sec 4.1, 2nd para: Having a 2119 requirements in a note seems odd.  This should be reworded.  Maybe just remove "Note however …
[Ballot comment]
1) Sec 4.1, 2nd para: Having a 2119 requirements in a note seems odd.  This should be reworded.  Maybe just remove "Note however that"?

2) Sec 4.1.1: r/Eth LSP/Eth-LSP

3) Sec 6: Expand UNI, NNI, and DOS.
2010-10-06
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
This is an updated discuss.

The authors explained that MACSEC can be used with non-full blown IP implementations.  I think that we should …
[Ballot discuss]
This is an updated discuss.

The authors explained that MACSEC can be used with non-full blown IP implementations.  I think that we should say that the mechanisms in RFFC 4872 and 4873 can be used with full blown IP implementaitons.  Maybe something along the lines of:

For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. Cryptography can be used to protect against many attacks described in [RFC5920].  For full-blown IP implementations, the mechanisms available in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] can be used.  For non-full-blown IP implementations, one option for protecting "transport" Ethernet is the use of 802.1AE Media Access Control Security, [MACSEC] which provides encryption and authentication.
2010-10-06
06 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
I am fine with approving this document, but there is one detail that needs to be fixed, and can easily be fixed in …
[Ballot discuss]
I am fine with approving this document, but there is one detail that needs to be fixed, and can easily be fixed in the document. Section 5.2 defines normative behavior in the case of Invalid MAC addresses (actually the functional IEEE 802.1 functional address range) but does not explicitely specify this range, but rather refers to [IEEE 802.1Q] which is an Informational Reference. I think that for clarity either the reference must be moved to Normative, or the range of the functional addresses needs to be shown here.
2010-10-06
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-10-06
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-10-06
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
Why is there a question over this suggested value?

"(suggested value: 35?)"
2010-10-06
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-10-06
06 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-10-05
06 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-10-05
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
1) Sec 4.1, 2nd para: Having a 2119 requirements in a note seems odd.  This should be reworded.  Maybe just remove "Note however …
[Ballot comment]
1) Sec 4.1, 2nd para: Having a 2119 requirements in a note seems odd.  This should be reworded.  Maybe just remove "Note however that"?

2) Sec 4.1.1: r/Eth LSP/Eth-LSP

3) Sec 6: Expand UNI, NNI, and DOS.

4) Sec 6: Consider adding a reference to
2010-10-05
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
Waiting for authors to respond to my question (haven't formally balloted AND sent this out to them - though they got it in …
[Ballot discuss]
Waiting for authors to respond to my question (haven't formally balloted AND sent this out to them - though they got it in an email from me):

So I'm following the bread crumbs here.  This document's security considerations say that RFC 4872 and RFC 4873 apply.

RFC 4872 requires that the RSVP signaling MUST be able to provide authentication and integrity.  It then points to RFC 2747 for a hop-by-hop mechanism and RFC 3473 for non-hop-by-hop mechanism.

RFC 4873 points to 3473.

This document then says an option to protect "transport" Ethernet is MACSEC.  If there's already mechanisms in 4873 and 4872, then why do we need MACSEC?
2010-10-05
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-10-05
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-10-01
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2010-10-01
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2010-10-01
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review from David Black on 26-Aug-2010 raised two issues
  related to Section 5.1.2:

  - Is the "has to allocate …
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review from David Black on 26-Aug-2010 raised two issues
  related to Section 5.1.2:

  - Is the "has to allocate a VID" statement in Section 5.1.2 correct
    when shared forwarding is in use as described in Section 3.1?

  - The error value: MPLS Label allocation failure (9) appears to be
    inconsistent with the second bullet in Section 7 that requests IANA
    to allocate a new error value: "PBB-TE Ethernet Label VID allocation
    failure" (suggested value: 35?) for this case.
2010-10-01
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2010-10-01
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review from David Black on 26-Aug-2010 raised two issues
  related to Section 5.1.2:

  - Is the "has to allocate …
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review from David Black on 26-Aug-2010 raised two issues
  related to Section 5.1.2:

  - Is the "has to allocate a VID" statement in Section 5.1.2 correct
    when shared forwarding is in use as described in Section 3.1?

  - The error value: MPLS Label allocation failure (9) appears to be
    inconsistent with the second bullet in Section 7 that requests IANA
    to allocate a new error value: "PBB-TE Ethernet Label VID allocation
    failure" (suggested value: 35?) for this case.
2010-10-01
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-09-29
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2010-09-29
06 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel
2010-09-29
06 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2010-09-28
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-06.txt
2010-09-10
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-09-09
2010-09-02
06 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation from In Last Call by Amy Vezza
2010-08-30
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder.
2010-08-30
06 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

IANA has a question about the IANA Actions required upon approval of
this document. IANA notes that one of the IANA Actions for …
IANA comments:

IANA has a question about the IANA Actions required upon approval of
this document. IANA notes that one of the IANA Actions for this document
is dependent on another Internet-Draft and refers to a registry that is
yet to be established.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four
IANA Actions that must be completed.

First, in the Switching Type subregistry of the Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml

add a new switching type registration:

Value Name Reference
------- ---------------------------- ----------
tbd1 802_1 PBB-TE RFC-to-be

The authors suggest a value of "40" be used.

Second, in the Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes
subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters
located at:

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

assign a new globally defined error value: "PBB-TE Ethernet Label VID
allocation failure" under the "Routing problem" (value 24) error code.

The authors suggest a value of "35" be used.

Third, in the Attributes TLV Space subregistry of the Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml

a single value is to be added for the Service ID TLV that is carried in
the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object (class = 197, C-Type = 1) [RFC5420].

The authors suggest a value of "2" be used.

IANA QUESTIONS: what is the value of the "Name" field that should be
registered? How should the questions "Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES?" and
"Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES?" to be answered?

Finally, fourth, assign a new type (suggested value 2) for the Service
ID TLV that is carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES Object (class = 201,
C-Type = 1). IANA understands that this registry is not yet established
and would be created upon approval of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions.

IANA understands that these are the only actions required upon approval
of this document.
2010-08-20
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2010-08-20
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2010-08-18
06 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-08-18
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-18
06 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-09-09 by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-18
06 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-18
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2010-08-18
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-08-18
06 (System) Last call text was added
2010-08-18
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-08-18
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-08-18
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-05.txt
2010-06-17
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel
2010-06-07
06 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel
2010-05-25
06 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'Deborah Brungard is the document shepherd (db3546@att.com).' added by Amy Vezza
2010-05-25
06 Amy Vezza
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-04.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-ethernet-pbb-te-04.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. Several liaisons
were exchanged with IEEE, ITU-T, and MEF during CCAMP's Ethernet work to
ensure compatibility and cooperation between the SDOs.

(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. Two IPR disclosures have been filed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1195/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1174/
No concerns have been raised.


(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].

One reference to a document in the process of publication.
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 specification is complementary to the GMPLS Ethernet Label
Switching
Architecture and Framework [RFC5828] and describes the technology
specific
aspects of GMPLS control for Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic
Engineering (PBB-TE)
[IEEE 802.1Qay]. The necessary GMPLS extensions and mechanisms are
described to
establish Ethernet PBB-TE point to point (P2P) and point to multipoint
(P2MP)
connections. This document supports, but does not modify, the standard
IEEE
data plane.


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.
2010-05-25
06 Amy Vezza Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested
2010-05-03
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-04.txt
2010-04-18
06 (System) Document has expired
2009-10-16
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-03.txt
2009-07-16
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02
2009-04-29
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Update to Nortel Networks Statement of IPR related to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te
2009-02-26
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt
2008-07-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt
2008-04-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt