MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions
RFC 6923

[Ballot comment]
[I realized I made a small mistake in one sentence below. Resending]

Regarding ...

Bert> So in my view, it is not "augmenting" rfc6370, but instead defining a extra/duplicate set of names for the same thing.

Huub> They will not be used at the same time in the same domain.

The document would be incomplete without such a clarification: "the different name schemes are not supposed  to be run in the same domain"

[Ballot discuss]
"This document specifies an alternative way to uniquely identify an
  operator/service provider based on ITU-T conventions and specifies
  how this operator/service provider identifier can be used to make the
  existing set of MPLS-TP transport and management entity identifiers,
  defined by [RFC6370], globally unique."

The wording of the para above incorrectly implies that RFC6370 is unable to define a globally unique identifier. The para needs to be reworded.

=====

The draft says:

"The notation defines a preferred ordering of the fields."

and then:

"Note, however, that the uniqueness of an identifier does not depend
on the ordering, but rather, upon the uniqueness and scoping of the
fields that compose the identifier.  Further, the preferred ordering
is not intended to constrain protocol designs by dictating a
particular field sequence or even what fields appear in which
objects."

However it has been pointed out that in ITU-T contribution:

"wd13_multicompanies_amendments_to_g.8113.1

"for discussion at the SG15 interim in Hiroshima the proposal is to specify MEP ID to be ICC::Node_ID::IF_Num::CC.

"That is different from MEP ID described in this draft (i.e., MEG_ID::MEP_Index) where MEG ID is CC::ICC::UMC. So MEP ID should be CC::ICC::UMC::MEP_Index."

So this draft defines a preferred order and the first protocol that proposes to use this scheme prefers a different order.
I take no position on what the ordering should be, but I think that we should hold this document until the authors have had the opportunity to discuss the ITU-T proposal in Hiroshima and either align the texts or explain why alignment is not preferred.

=====

The draft says

"The ICC itself is a string of one to six characters, each character
  being either alphabetic (i.e.  A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9).
  Alphabetic characters in the ICC SHOULD be represented with upper
  case letters."

and yet does not define the character representation, this could surely lead
to some inter-working issues.

=====

"The ICC_Operator_ID is used as a replacement for the Global_ID as
  specified in [RFC6370], i.e. its purpose is to provide a globally
  unique context for other MPLS-TP identifiers."

I think that it be better to be clearer that you are replacing one globally
unique identifier with another globally unique identifier.

=====

[Ballot comment]

I am confused as why this draft is not reduced  to the functional equivalent
of  s/AS/(ASCII)ICC+(ASCII)CC/ in RFC6370 without the need to redefine
each of  the objects.

[Ballot discuss]
This is an initial discuss as I have yet to review this draft.

However it has been pointed out that in ITU-T contribution:

wd13_multicompanies_amendments_to_g.8113.1

for discussion at the SG15 interim in Hiroshima the proposal is to specify MEP ID to be ICC::Node_ID::IF_Num::CC.

That is different from MEP ID described in this draft (i.e., MEG_ID::MEP_Index) where MEG ID is CC::ICC::UMC. So MEP ID should be CC::ICC::UMC::MEP_Index.

I do not care what the definition is, but these two definitions need to be identical.

I will close the discuss when the texts are aligned.

[Ballot discuss]
ISO 3166-1 changes. Isn't a more specific reference to a particular year needed? This might seem like a minor point, but codes have been reassigned (e.g., RU) so wouldn't using the wrong version of 3166-1 result in misroutes?

There are different types of 3166-1 alpha-2 codes.  Must an implementation support all the codes or some subset (i.e., only the officially assigned codes)?  What should an implementation do if it encounters one of the codes agreed to not be used (e.g., WO)?

[Ballot comment]

Just nits:

- section 1: "an alternative way to uniquely identify an
operator/service provider" is a bit odd, perhaps it'd be
better to say "an alternative way to produce a unique
identifier for an operator/service provider"? The current text
could be read as saying that was the only way to identify an
operator.

- section 8: maybe s/describe use of/use/ or
s/describe use/describe the use/

[Ballot comment]
Regarding ...
Bert> So in my view, it is not "augmenting" rfc6370, but instead defining a extra/duplicate set of names for the same thing.
Huub> They will not be used at the same time in the same domain.

The document would be complete with such a clarification: the different name schemes are not supposed  to be run in the same domain

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (MPLS-TP Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS-TP Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-01-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  This document specifies an extension to the identifiers to be used in
  the Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
  Identifiers that follow IP/MPLS conventions have already been
  defined.  This memo augments that set of identifiers for MPLS-TP
  management and OAM functions to include identifier information in a
  format typically used by the ITU-T.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
    Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated
    in the title page header?


  The MPLS working group request that:

            MPLS-TP Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions

                draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-06

  is published as an RFC on the standards track.


This draft is part IETF/ITU-T MPLS-TP project, while there is a small
interest for this draft in IETF it is critical for anyone who want to
implment MPLS-TP in networks using ITU-T based identifiers. There is a
companion document (RFC6370) that defines the IETF identifiers.

The identifiers specified here (in RFC6370) are intended to by used in
public MPLS-TP networks, both are on the standards track.


(2) 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:


This document augments the initial set of identifiers to be used in
the Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP)
defined in RFC6370.

RFC6370 defines a set of MPLS-TP transport and management entity
identifiers to support bidirectional (co-routed and associated)
point-to-point MPLS-TP LSPs, including PWs and Sections which follow
the IP/MPLS conventions.

This document specifies an alternative way to uniquely identify an
operator/service provider based on ITU-T conventions and specifies
how this operator/service provider identifier can be used to make the
existing set of MPLS-TP transport and management entity identifiers,
defined by RFC6370, globally unique.

This document solely defines those identifiers.  Their use and
possible protocols extensions to carry them is out of scope in this
document.



    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?

When we started the MPLS-TP project, it was generally understood that
the IETF protocols would be the protocols to be extended and build
upen. Backwards compatibility and one single MPLS technology, among
other things were considered important.

However, it was also agreed that MPLS-TP should be possible to run in
networks that does not natively include IP routing and IP addressing,
this doucment specifies a set of identifiers for such networks.

While the working group have never taken a strong interest in this
document, there has also been a general agreement that the
"ITU-T identifiers" is something that needs to be specified as part
of the MPLS-TP project.



    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?

We do not know any implementations of this draft.

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd?

Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.

    Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.



    (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was
    performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the
    document is not ready for publication, please explain why the
    document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document at the point in time
when it was being polled to become a working group document and as
a part of the preparation for the working group last call.

The document has also been reviewed by people activie in ITU-T SG15
when the document was accepted as a working group document and at
wg last call.

All comments received on the document has been resolved and there is
a generla agreement that the document is ready to be publsihed as a
Standard Tracks RFC.


    (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
    or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No such concerns.

    (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or
    from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational
    complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so,
    describe the review that took place.

The document shepherd believes that the current review situation is
sufficient.


    (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
    Shepherd has 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.

No such concerns.

    (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

A poll for IPRs has been done among the authors and in the working
group, as part of the process leading up to the publication request.

All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of any existing
IPR claims.


    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this
    document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion
    regarding the IPR disclosures.

There are no IPR disclosures against this draft.

    (9) 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 are support for this document and an agreement that for some
types of operational environments it is needed.

    (10) 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 publicly available.)

No such threats!

    (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in
    this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

This document passes the ID-nits tool clean, with the exception
that it is pointed out that we have a potential Down Ref as the
document references ISO3166-1 and M1400.

Note: The document shepherd is currentl uncertain whether this
      constitutes a Down Ref or not.
      At the same time the shepherd is confused whey Y.1731_cor1
      is not captured as a potential Down Ref.

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

No such formal review requirements!

    (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
    either normative or informative?

Yes.

    (14) 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 plan for their
    completion?

All normative references are RFCs or documents published by other
SDO's.

    (15) Are there downward normative references references
    (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support
    the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

See not under 11.

    (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
    listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If
    the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain
    why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
    of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
    information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers
    it unnecessary.

This document will not change the status of any other document.

    (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
    considerations section, especially with regard to its
    consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all
    protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with
    the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
    any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
    Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
    specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined,
    and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested
    (see RFC 5226).

This document requests no IANA allocations.



    (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
    future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
    would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
    registries.

No new IANA registries.

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the
    Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written
    in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB
    definitions, etc.

No such review required.