Skip to main content

Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions
RFC 7060

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp@ietf.org to (None)
2013-11-25
04 (System) RFC published
2013-11-22
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7060">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2013-10-29
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7060">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2013-10-16
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2013-09-19
04 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2013-09-18
04 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2013-09-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2013-09-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2013-09-17
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2013-09-17
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2013-09-17
04 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2013-09-17
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2013-09-17
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-09-17
04 Adrian Farrel State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2013-09-17
04 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2013-09-17
04 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-09-12
04 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2013-09-12
04 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-09-12
04 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- The write-up says an implementation poll was sent out
and results would be in "soon" - are they in?

- The security …
[Ballot comment]

- The write-up says an implementation poll was sent out
and results would be in "soon" - are they in?

- The security considerations just says "nothing new here"
which is always a bit offputting for a SEC AD:-) Can you
explain why there is nothing new here? (I didn't have time
to trace all the references sorry, and I'm not asking that
you put in new text but do wonder if there's an easy
answer to the question.)
2013-09-12
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-09-12
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-09-11
04 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-09-11
04 Francis Dupont Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2013-09-11
04 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-09-11
04 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-09-11
04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
I see Section 1.3 manageability in RFC 6388. Good.
Please add a sentence/a new section such as this one:

    Section …
[Ballot comment]
I see Section 1.3 manageability in RFC 6388. Good.
Please add a sentence/a new section such as this one:

    Section 1.3 "manageability" in RFC 6388 stresses the need to develop an additional MIB module, next to RFC3815,
    to support P2MP in LDP.  LDP multipoint extension for targeted LDP should also be covered by this MIB module.
2013-09-11
04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-09-10
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-09-09
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-09-09
04 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-09-06
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-09-06
04 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-09-05
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2013-09-05
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2013-09-05
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2013-09-04
04 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2013-09-04
04 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2013-09-04
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-09-04
04 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2013-09-04
04 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-09-12
2013-09-04
04 Adrian Farrel Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2013-09-04
04 Eric Rosen IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2013-09-04
04 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-04.txt
2013-09-03
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-09-03
03 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.  IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2013-09-03
03 Francis Dupont Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2013-09-03
03 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2013-08-22
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2013-08-22
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2013-08-22
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2013-08-22
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2013-08-20
03 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-08-20
03 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <mpls@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <mpls@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt> (Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions'
  <draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt> 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 2013-09-03. 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

  As specified in RFC 6388, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) can be
  used to set up Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-
  Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths.  However, RFC 6388
  presupposes that the two endpoints of an LDP session are directly
  connected.  The LDP base specification (RFC 5036) allows for the case
  where the two endpoints of an LDP session are not directly connected;
  such a session is known as a "Targeted LDP" session.  This document
  provides the specification for using the LDP P2MP/MP2MP extensions
  over a Targeted LDP session.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
2013-08-20
03 Cindy Morgan State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel Last call was requested
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was changed
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel Last call announcement was generated
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was generated
2013-08-20
03 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-08-12
03 Cindy Morgan
(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?  …
(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:

          Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions

                  draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt

  is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

  This document extends the standards track RFC 6388 (Multipoint Extensions
  to LDP) by specifying new procedures to handle some use cases that cannot
  be handled by RFC 6388 alone.  Upon approval of this document, these
  procedures become part of the Multipoint Extensions to LDP, and thus
  it is appropriate to specify them in a standards track document.

 

(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

  RFC 6388 specifies how Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) can be
  used to set up Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-
  Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths.  RFC 6388 presupposes
  that the two endpoints of an LDP session are directly connected. 
  The LDP base specification (RFC 5036) allows for the case where the
  two endpoints of an LDP session are not directly connected; such
  a session is known as a "Targeted LDP" session.  This document
  provides the specification for using the LDP P2MP/MP2MP extensions
  over a Targeted LDP session.
 

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?

    An implementation poll has been sent to the working group and
    the information on implementations will be updated as soon as
    we received information from this poll.

    There is no need for MIB Doctor or Media Type reviews.

    This document did have a fairly normal working group last call,
    with good comments that have been addressed.

Personnel


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?
 
  Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.

  Adrian Farrel is/will be 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 shepherd has reviewed three times. When the document first
  were published as an individual draft, prior to the poll to make
  it a working group document and as part of pre-paring the wglc.
 
  The document shepherd believes it is ready for publication.


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

  No.


(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.

  No.


(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.

  Yes - all three authors have confirmed tht they are not aware of
  any IPR for this doucment.


(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 on this document.


(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?

  The working group is behind this document. It has been well
  discussed and reviewed. 


(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.

  No nits.

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

  There are no such formal review criteria.

(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?

  There are only normative references in this document, all of them
  to existing RFCs.

(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.

  No downward references.



(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.

  No.


(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).


  There are no requests for IANA actions in this document.
 


(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 formal language.
2013-08-12
03 Cindy Morgan IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-08-12
03 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for <a href="/doc/draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp/">draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp</a>
2013-08-12
03 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-08-12
03 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-08-12
03 Loa Andersson Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2013-08-12
03 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2013-08-12
03 Loa Andersson Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2013-08-07
03 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-06
03 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2013-08-06
03 Loa Andersson Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared.
2013-08-06
03 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-05
03 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt
2013-07-10
02 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document
2013-07-10
02 Loa Andersson Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson
2013-06-24
02 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-02.txt
2013-03-14
01 Loa Andersson Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set.
2013-01-28
01 Loa Andersson IPR Poll started
2013-01-28
01 Loa Andersson Waiting for IPR Poll
2013-01-28
01 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-01.txt
2012-08-03
00 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-00.txt