Skip to main content

RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks
RFC 7792

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-03-11
05 (System) RFC published
2016-03-07
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7792">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2016-02-23
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7792">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2016-02-17
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-12-17
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-12-16
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-12-16
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors
2015-12-15
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-12-15
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-12-15
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-12-15
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2015-12-15
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-12-15
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-12-15
05 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2015-12-15
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2015-11-26
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-11-19
05 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-05.txt
2015-11-19
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-11-19
04 Xian Zhang IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-11-19
04 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-04.txt
2015-11-19
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-11-19
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-11-18
03 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
Tina Tsou performed the opsdir review
2015-11-18
03 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-11-18
03 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

The IPR disclosure is dated one day after the date of the
current draft. That's kind of iccky in terms of the WG …
[Ballot comment]

The IPR disclosure is dated one day after the date of the
current draft. That's kind of iccky in terms of the WG having
really had a chance to consider what they think of the IPR,
e.g. before a WGLC. Did the WG specifically consider this IPR
declaration in a way that left some trace?  (Sorry I've not had
time to check the list archive.)
2015-11-18
03 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-11-18
03 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-11-17
03 Christer Holmberg Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2015-11-17
03 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-11-17
03 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-11-17
03 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-11-17
03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-11-17
03 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]

  This document makes minor modifications to GMPLS signaling, but does
  not change the manageability considerations for such networks.
  Clearly, protocol …
[Ballot comment]

  This document makes minor modifications to GMPLS signaling, but does
  not change the manageability considerations for such networks.
  Clearly, protocol analysis tools and other diagnostic aids
  (including logging systems and MIB modules) will need to be enhanced
  to support the new traffic parameters and label formats.

Are those manageability considerations described anywhere, by any chance?
2015-11-17
03 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-11-17
03 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-11-17
03 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-11-17
03 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-11-16
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tina Tsou.
2015-11-16
03 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-11-16
03 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-11-10
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2015-11-10
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-11-19
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard Notification list changed to none from draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext.all@ietf.org
2015-11-09
03 Deborah Brungard Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-11-09
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-10-29
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-10-29
03 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-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-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Class Types or C-Types - 9 FLOWSPEC subregistry in the Class Names, Class Numbers and Class Types registry in the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at:

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

a new class type is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: SSON FLOWSPEC
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the Class Types or C-Types - 12 SENDER_TSPEC subregistry in the Class Names, Class Numbers and Class Types registry also in the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at:

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

a new class type is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: SSON SENDER_TSPEC
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors request that the same value for these new Class Types be used and also notes that the authors have suggested a value of 8.

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. 

While IANA will assign the suggested values if they remain available, IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.
2015-10-29
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2015-10-29
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2015-10-28
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-10-28
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-10-26
03 Deborah Brungard Notification list changed to draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext.all@ietf.org
2015-10-26
03 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-10-26
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: ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, …
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: ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, daniel@olddog.co.uk, db3546@att.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt> (RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Flexible Grid) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Flexible Grid'
  <draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-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 2015-11-09. 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 memo describes the extensions to the Resource reserVation
  Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol to support
  Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in a GMPLS-controlled network that
  includes devices using the flexible optical grid.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2650/



2015-10-26
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-10-26
03 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2015-10-26
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2015-10-26
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2015-10-26
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-10-26
03 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2015-10-26
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from "Daniel King" <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext@ietf.org to (None)
2015-09-23
03 Fatai Zhang
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

This document is requested for …
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

This document is requested for publication as Standards Track, and noted accordingly in the document header.

>    Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC
>    indicated in the title page header?

The document describes the protocol extensions and procedures for Resource reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling to support Label Switched Paths (LSPs) used within a GMPLS-controlled flexi-grid optical networks.

> (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 International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal central frequencies, channel spacing's and the concept of "frequency slot".  In such an environment, a data plane connection is switched based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the optical spectrum creating what is known as flexi-grid.

This document reflects recommendations defined by the ITU-T and describes the requirements, procedures and protocol extensions for RSVP-TE signaling to set up LSPs in optical networks that support flexi-grid. The I-D using the label definition documented in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.

> Working Group Summary:

The initial RSVP-TE signaling extensions in support of flexible grid Internet-Draft (I-D) was published in October 2011, after numerous presentations at CCAMP working group (WG) meetings and list discussions it has matured over several versions. Key discussion points included:

+ Traffic Parameters
- Its correct use
+ Grid Value
- To determine how to carry the central frequency & slot width in RSVP-TE
+ Refined to make it consistent with flexible grid framework and label
extension I-Ds
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label

The issues above were discussed during IETF meetings and on the mailing list and an acceptable (by the CCAMP WG) definitions were established. Overall the document has received broad support from the CCAMP WG during its life.
No objection to progression of the I-D (via the CCAMP mailing list or documented in CCAMP WG minutes), and especially at Last Call was recorded. 

> Document Quality:

The work has had contributions from a large group of people from multiple people both from the ITU-T and IETF.  Additionally, the work has had external review from the IDEALIST EU project (http://www.ict-idealist.eu/) that is making multiple inter-operating implementations of a GMPLS control plane for flexible grid

> Personnel:

+ Daniel King is the document Shepherd
+ Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

Note that Since both the CCAMP WG Chairs (Fatai Zhang &  Daniele Ceccarelli) and the CCAMP WG Secretary (Oscar Gonzalez de Dios) are involved in the draft as co-authors, a document shepherd which is not one of the Chairs or the Secretary was requested.

> (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 (Daniel King) has reviewed the current revision of the document and 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 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 such content.

> (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?

The WG chairs contacted all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded and their statements recorded on the CCAMP mailing list and collected in the history of the draft as comments (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext/history/ )


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

One IPR disclosure has been recorded on 4 August, 2015. 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2650/

> (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 has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus for the document. See section 2 (above) for more detail.

> (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 threats or discontent has been recorded.

> (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.

After using the idnits tool against the current document, a few minor issues/comments exist:

(38): Line has weird spacing: '... months  and ...'
(39): Line has weird spacing: '... at any  time...'
(40): Line has weird spacing: '...ference  mate...'
(514): Unexpected reference format: '...[FLEX-LBL]King, D., ...'

Furthermore, I note a typo on line (461) "draft-ietf-cammp-flexi-grid-fwk"
should be changed to "draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk".

One minor comment from this Shepherd. The document title and file name use the definition "flexible grid". Associated I-Ds (draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk & draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label)
use the term "flexi-grid". However, this document does mention in section 1
("Introduction") that ""flexible grids", [are] known as "flexi-grid"".

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

No such reviews needed.

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

All references correctly identified.

> (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?

No such normative references exist.

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

The idnits tool warns about normative references to ITU G.694.1 as a potential downref.

> (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 issues.

> (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 document introduces two new Class Types for existing RSVP objects. If approved, these will be allocated from the "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" registry using the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" sub-registry.

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

In section 5.1 the document does mention that IANA is requested to assign the same value for "TBD1" and "TBD2" ("SSON FLOWSPEC" & "SSON SENDER_TSPEC"), and a value of "8" is suggested. It is unclear if this value is due to any prior implementation, or simply the next available value (following "OTN-TDM") based on the current sub-registry assignments.

> (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 registry was requested.

> (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 sections.
2015-09-22
03 Fatai Zhang
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

This document is requested for …
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

This document is requested for publication as an Internet Standard, and noted accordingly in the document header.

>    Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC
>    indicated in the title page header?

The document describes the protocol extensions and procedures for Resource reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling to support Label Switched Paths (LSPs) used within a GMPLS-controlled flexi-grid optical networks.

> (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 International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal central frequencies, channel spacing's and the concept of "frequency slot".  In such an environment, a data plane connection is switched based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the optical spectrum creating what is known as flexi-grid.

This document reflects recommendations defined by the ITU-T and describes the requirements, procedures and protocol extensions for RSVP-TE signaling to set up LSPs in optical networks that support flexi-grid. The I-D using the label definition documented in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label.

> Working Group Summary:

The initial RSVP-TE signaling extensions in support of flexible grid Internet-Draft (I-D) was published in October 2011, after numerous presentations at CCAMP working group (WG) meetings and list discussions it has matured over several versions. Key discussion points included:

+ Traffic Parameters
- Its correct use
+ Grid Value
- To determine how to carry the central frequency & slot width in RSVP-TE
+ Refined to make it consistent with flexible grid framework and label
extension I-Ds
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label

The issues above were discussed during IETF meetings and on the mailing list and an acceptable (by the CCAMP WG) definitions were established. Overall the document has received broad support from the CCAMP WG during its life.
No objection to progression of the I-D (via the CCAMP mailing list or documented in CCAMP WG minutes), and especially at Last Call was recorded. 

> Document Quality:

The work has had contributions from a large group of people from multiple people both from the ITU-T and IETF.  Additionally, the work has had external review from the IDEALIST EU project (http://www.ict-idealist.eu/) that is making multiple inter-operating implementations of a GMPLS control plane for flexible grid

> Personnel:

+ Daniel King is the document Shepherd
+ Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

Note that Since both the CCAMP WG Chairs (Fatai Zhang &  Daniele Ceccarelli) and the CCAMP WG Secretary (Oscar Gonzalez de Dios) are involved in the draft as co-authors, a document shepherd which is not one of the Chairs or the Secretary was requested.

> (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 (Daniel King) has reviewed the current revision of the document and 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 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 such content.

> (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?

The WG chairs contacted all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded and their statements recorded on the CCAMP mailing list and collected in the history of the draft as comments (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext/history/ )


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

One IPR disclosure has been recorded on 4 August, 2015. 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2650/

> (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 has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus for the document. See section 2 (above) for more detail.

> (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 threats or discontent has been recorded.

> (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.

After using the idnits tool against the current document, a few minor issues/comments exist:

(38): Line has weird spacing: '... months  and ...'
(39): Line has weird spacing: '... at any  time...'
(40): Line has weird spacing: '...ference  mate...'
(514): Unexpected reference format: '...[FLEX-LBL]King, D., ...'

Furthermore, I note a typo on line (461) "draft-ietf-cammp-flexi-grid-fwk"
should be changed to "draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk".

One minor comment from this Shepherd. The document title and file name use the definition "flexible grid". Associated I-Ds (draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk & draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label)
use the term "flexi-grid". However, this document does mention in section 1
("Introduction") that ""flexible grids", [are] known as "flexi-grid"".

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

No such reviews needed.

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

All references correctly identified.

> (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?

No such normative references exist.

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

The idnits tool warns about normative references to ITU G.694.1 as a potential downref.

> (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 issues.

> (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 document introduces two new Class Types for existing RSVP objects. If approved, these will be allocated from the "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" registry using the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" sub-registry.

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

In section 5.1 the document does mention that IANA is requested to assign the same value for "TBD1" and "TBD2" ("SSON FLOWSPEC" & "SSON SENDER_TSPEC"), and a value of "8" is suggested. It is unclear if this value is due to any prior implementation, or simply the next available value (following "OTN-TDM") based on the current sub-registry assignments.

> (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 registry was requested.

> (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 sections.
2015-09-22
03 Fatai Zhang Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2015-09-22
03 Fatai Zhang IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2015-09-22
03 Fatai Zhang IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-09-22
03 Fatai Zhang IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-09-22
03 Daniele Ceccarelli Changed document writeup
2015-09-14
03 Fatai Zhang Notification list changed to "Daniel King" <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext@ietf.org from "Daniel King" <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
2015-09-14
03 Fatai Zhang Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-09-14
03 Fatai Zhang Notification list changed to "Daniel King" <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
2015-09-14
03 Fatai Zhang Document shepherd changed to Daniel King
2015-08-27
03 Daniele Ceccarelli
2015-08-04
Naveen Khan Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext
2015-08-02
03 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt
2015-01-29
02 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-02.txt
2015-01-06
01 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-01.txt
2014-06-23
00 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-00.txt