Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
RFC 7737
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2016-01-22
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2016-01-20
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7737">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2016-01-04
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7737">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2015-12-31
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
|
2015-12-16
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
|
2015-12-14
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
|
2015-10-19
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2015-10-19
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2015-10-19
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2015-10-19
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-10-16
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-10-15
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my prior discuss. |
|
2015-10-15
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org, rcallon@juniper.net to (None) |
|
2015-10-09
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2015-10-09
|
04 | Mach Chen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2015-10-09
|
05 | Mach Chen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-05.txt |
|
2015-10-08
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2015-10-01
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2015-10-01
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2015-10-01
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2015-09-30
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2015-09-30
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2015-09-30
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2015-09-30
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I support the publication, but I would like to see the update to RFC7110 clearly indicated — specially because the change modifies a … [Ballot comment] I support the publication, but I would like to see the update to RFC7110 clearly indicated — specially because the change modifies a “MUST” behavior. Section 3.1. (Reply via Specified Path Update) says that the "usage of the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion of a "Reply Path TLV" is no longer invalid” — but "Reply via Specified Path (5)” (that specific string of text) doesn’t show up in RFC7110, nor does the word invalid. In digging a little bit, I can see that Section 5.1. (Sending an Echo Request) of RFC7110 says: “When sending an echo request…the Reply Mode of the echo request MUST be set to "Reply via Specified Path", and a Reply Path TLV MUST be carried…” In the end, I’m assuming that the update to RFC7110 is to change that text in 5.1 to something like “…the TLV SHOULD be carried; if it isn’t then it indicates the reverse LSP…”. Please be clear. |
|
2015-09-30
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2015-09-30
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] typo? "the reverse the reverse LSP" |
|
2015-09-30
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2015-09-29
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] The security considerations say "no further considerations required" without further explanation. While I don't doubt that is true (except for those mentioned in … [Ballot comment] The security considerations say "no further considerations required" without further explanation. While I don't doubt that is true (except for those mentioned in Kathleen's DISCUSS), it would be helpful to mention the new protocol elements and procedures added, and why the wg believes they don't add any considerations beyond those in the referenced drafts. |
|
2015-09-29
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2015-09-29
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] This should be easy to resolve. SInce this draft adds a new capability to include the return path, this provides another attack vector … [Ballot discuss] This should be easy to resolve. SInce this draft adds a new capability to include the return path, this provides another attack vector to observe path information that could be part of reconnaissance gathering to later attack the network or path. While the referenced RFC4379 mentions the following in the security considerations section: The third is an unauthorized source using an LSP ping to obtain information about the network. The equivalent should be added for this new capability in this draft, since now it's possible to gather the path information from the new feature. |
|
2015-09-29
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2015-09-29
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2015-09-28
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2015-09-28
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2015-09-28
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] 1) Bottom of page 7: Please describe the meaning of the length field in the TLV and whether there is any padding. Alternately … [Ballot comment] 1) Bottom of page 7: Please describe the meaning of the length field in the TLV and whether there is any padding. Alternately (or as well) - give a reference that defines these details. |
|
2015-09-28
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2015-09-28
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2015-09-24
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
|
2015-09-24
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
|
2015-09-17
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh. |
|
2015-09-15
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2015-09-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2015-09-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-10-01 |
|
2015-09-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
|
2015-09-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-09-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-09-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-09-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2015-09-13
|
04 | Mach Chen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2015-09-13
|
04 | Mach Chen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04.txt |
|
2015-09-03
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2015-08-31
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-08-31
|
03 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA needs to complete. In the TLVs subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ a single, new TLV will be registered from the range (32768-49161) as follows: Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] TLV Name: Reply Mode Order TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Sub-TLV-Registry: No Sub-TLVs IANA understands that this is the only action that needs to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
|
2015-08-27
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley |
|
2015-08-27
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley |
|
2015-08-25
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dan Frost. |
|
2015-08-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
|
2015-08-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Amy Vezza | 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-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt> (Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification' <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-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 2015-09-03. 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 The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document updates the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode value to easily indicate the reverse LSP. This document also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered list of Reply Mode values. This document updates RFC7110. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
|
2015-08-20
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2015-08-18
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dan Frost |
|
2015-08-18
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dan Frost |
|
2015-05-12
|
03 | Ross Callon | (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? Proposed standard. This is the correct type of RFC since this updates a protocol feature and thereby updates an existing standards track RFC. This intended status is clearly indicated in the title page header. (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 The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document updates the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode value to easily indicate the reverse LSP. This document also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered list of Reply Mode values. This document updates RFC7110. Working Group Summary No controversy. The document has significant support. Document Quality RFC 7110 (which this document updates) is broadly implemented and widely deployed. Multiple vendors have indicated the intention to implement this enhancement. Experts from vendors and network operators have carefully reviewed the document. The document has been updated in response to last call (and other) comments. Personnel Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director. The previous AD for MPLS (Adrian Farrel) has reviewed the document and provided detailed comments. (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 has reviewed the document, and has also checked that other review comments have been addressed. I have also run IDnits and no issues were found. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No 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. 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 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. All authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR on this document. (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? Solid consensus with significant support and no opposition. (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 (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. IDnits did not find any issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, references are clearly separated into normative and informative references. (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 to standards track 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 normative downrefs. (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 updates RFC 7110. This is clearly indicated on the title page and in the abstract and introduction. (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). The IANA considerations section looks correct to me. (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 registries are required. (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. not applicable. |
|
2015-05-12
|
03 | Ross Callon | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-05-12
|
03 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
|
2015-05-12
|
03 | Ross Callon | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2015-05-12
|
03 | Ross Callon | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2015-05-11
|
03 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-05-11
|
03 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-05-11
|
03 | Ross Callon | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
|
2015-05-11
|
03 | Ross Callon | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2015-05-01
|
03 | Nobo Akiya | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt |
|
2015-04-15
|
02 | Nobo Akiya | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02.txt |
|
2015-04-13
|
01 | Ross Callon | Passed WGLC, with comments. |
|
2015-04-13
|
01 | Ross Callon | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
|
2015-04-13
|
01 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
|
2015-04-13
|
01 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2015-03-17
|
01 | Ross Callon | IPR poll in progress prior to WGLC |
|
2015-03-17
|
01 | Ross Callon | Notification list changed to mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org, rcallon@juniper.net from "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> |
|
2015-03-17
|
01 | Ross Callon | Notification list changed to "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> |
|
2015-03-17
|
01 | Ross Callon | Document shepherd changed to Ross Callon |
|
2015-01-05
|
01 | Nobo Akiya | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01.txt |
|
2014-09-08
|
00 | Loa Andersson | This document now replaces draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple instead of None |
|
2014-09-06
|
00 | Nobo Akiya | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-00.txt |