RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information
RFC 8001
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-01-12
|
08 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8001, changed title to 'RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information', changed … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8001, changed title to 'RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information', changed abstract to 'This document provides extensions for Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE), including GMPLS, to support automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP).', changed pages to 16, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-01-12, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2017-01-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2017-01-11
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8001">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2016-10-13
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8001">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2016-10-12
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2016-10-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA |
|
2016-10-10
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2016-10-10
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2016-10-05
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT |
|
2016-09-08
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2016-09-07
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2016-08-26
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2016-08-26
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2016-08-26
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2016-08-25
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2016-08-25
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2016-08-24
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2016-08-24
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2016-08-24
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-08-24
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-08-24
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-08-24
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
|
2016-08-24
|
08 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-08.txt |
|
2016-08-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
|
2016-08-16
|
07 | Matt Hartley | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2016-08-16
|
07 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07.txt |
|
2016-06-20
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-06-17
|
06 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
|
2016-06-16
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] "It is recommended that domain/layer boundary policies take the implications of releasing SRLG information into consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling." Eh, … [Ballot comment] "It is recommended that domain/layer boundary policies take the implications of releasing SRLG information into consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling." Eh, that's a bit opaque for me at least. Can you say a bit more about what those implications might be and how one might take them into account, and why that doesn't need to be mentioned in the document? I'm asking since there is a bit of a breach of the blood-brain barrier going on here (as is ack'd in the draft) and while it's hard to envisage that much going wrong if providers expose this information, I guess there might easily be something too subtle for this particular reader:-) |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] Adrian's explanation makes sense to me. I would have liked to see something similar to be added in the draft to clarify the … [Ballot comment] Adrian's explanation makes sense to me. I would have liked to see something similar to be added in the draft to clarify the behavior, but I leave it up to the authors/shepherds to decide if they want to do this or not. In Section 5.1 when the SRLG collection request was contained in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and the RRO would become too big, a node drops the RRO from the Path message entirely. It is not clear what the next node that receives this SRLG collection request without an RRO would need to do as the spec only says that the RRO is inserted at the ingress. What is the expected behavior here on the subsequent node? |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2016-06-15
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot discuss] In Section 5.1 when the SRLG collection request was contained in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and the RRO would become too big, a node drops … [Ballot discuss] In Section 5.1 when the SRLG collection request was contained in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and the RRO would become too big, a node drops the RRO from the Path message entirely. It is not clear what the next node that receives this SRLG collection request without an RRO would need to do as the spec only says that the RRO is inserted at the ingress. What is the expected behavior here on the subsequent node? |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] My comments are relatively minor but I would like to see them addressed before publication. 1. Section 4.1. (SRLG Collection Flag): "…this document … [Ballot comment] My comments are relatively minor but I would like to see them addressed before publication. 1. Section 4.1. (SRLG Collection Flag): "…this document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV…which MAY be carried…" I think a clearer description would be something worded more along the lines of "…which MUST be set in…to indicate that SRLG information SHOULD be reported…" It would also be good if in this section the difference between LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP_ATTRIBUTES is also explained. 2. Section 4.2. (RRO SRLG sub-object): "…The SRLG sub-object SHOULD be pushed…before the node IP address…SHOULD be pushed after the Attribute sub-object, if present, and after the LABEL sub-object, if requested." Knowing that it is a stack, does it really make a difference where the SRLG sub-object is pushed? Put another way, why are you using "SHOULD" and not "MUST"? 3. Section 5.1. (SRLG Collection) "A node SHOULD NOT add SRLG information without an explicit request…" What happens if a node does? Should the "SHOULD NOT" be "MUST NOT"? 4. Section 5.2. (SRLG Update): "If local policy is that the SRLG change SHOULD be suppressed…" s/SHOULD/should The policy is being described, so a normative keyword is not appropriate. 5. Section 5.3 (Domain Boundaries) "If mandated by local policy, a node…MAY add a summary of the removed SRLGs or map them to other SRLG values." How is this (summary or mapping) done? If specified somewhere else, please add a reference. 6. Section 6.2. (Coherent SRLG IDs): "…SRLG IDs SHOULD be unique." Why is this not a MUST? |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] opsdir review by Niclas Comstedt <nco@comstedt.net> |
|
2016-06-14
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2016-06-13
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-06-13
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Minor comments/questions: - Please spell out RRO in section 4.2 - Why are the following SHOULDs not MUSTs? "[...] the Path message SHOULD … [Ballot comment] Minor comments/questions: - Please spell out RRO in section 4.2 - Why are the following SHOULDs not MUSTs? "[...] the Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the SRLG recording restriction and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG sub-object(s) added to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message." - Why do you need two (potentially different) policies for the two points below. Shouldn't a node that provides SRLG information initially, also always provide updates (as the initial information might otherwise be wrong and therefore not be able to address the originial intention anymore - disjoint paths)? "o Whether the node is allowed to participate in SRLG collection. o Whether the node should notify changes to collected SRLG information to endpoint nodes as described in section 5.2." |
|
2016-06-13
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2016-06-13
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] - 5.3: "...this SHOULD NOT be done unless explicitly mandated by local policy." Is that the same as saying this should default … [Ballot comment] - 5.3: "...this SHOULD NOT be done unless explicitly mandated by local policy." Is that the same as saying this should default to off unless the administrator chooses to turn it on? |
|
2016-06-13
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2016-06-11
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2016-06-10
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2016-06-09
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2016-06-07
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2016-06-07
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Attribute Flags subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/ a new attribute flag is to be registered as follows: Bit No: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: SRLG Flag Attribute Flags Path: Yes Attribute Flags Resv: No RRO: Yes ERO: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 12 for the Bit No. IANA Question --> What should the value of ERO be for this registration? Second, in the Sub-object type - 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/ the temporary registration of Value: 34 Description: SRLG sub-object will be made permanent and the reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Third, in the Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes subregistry also in the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/ the temporary registration of Value: 21 Description: SRLG Recording Rejected will be made permanent and the reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. IANA understands that these are the only actions required 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
|
2016-06-02
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
|
2016-06-02
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
|
2016-06-02
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
|
2016-06-02
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | 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: teas@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@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: teas@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, vbeeram@juniper.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt> (RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information' <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.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 2016-06-10. 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 provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE), including GMPLS, to support automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2478/ |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-06-16 |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Vishnu Beeram | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD cleared. |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Vishnu Beeram | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. … > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. > > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, > Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Track. > Why is this the proper type of RFC? The document defines RSVP related formats and behaviors. > Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes. > > (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 > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP). > 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? This document moved from the CCAMP WG to TEAS WG as part of the routing WG changes. There was some debate on additional capabilities though consensus was reached for the basic functionality among the working group. A second WG Last Call was needed as substantial comments were raised by other Area Directorate reviews during IETF Last Call. > > 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? The base (G)MPLS RSVP protocol has been implemented. The extensions defined in this document are compatible with earlier implementations. While there have been no public statements on implementation, the authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation is expected. > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Vishnu Pavan Beeram > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard > > (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 as it has progressed through the WG (first CCAMP, then TEAS). The Shepherd believes this document 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? No. > If so, describe the review that took place. N/A. > > (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 specific 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, see threads http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16689.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16704.html > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. Yes, an IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document (http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2478/). The discussion surrounding this disclosure is captured in the following thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16704.html. The conclusion from the discussion was that the disclosure, though a bit late in the process than expected, was made with the intent to comply with IETF’s IPR disclosure policy. > (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 among those who are interested. "strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable characterization. > (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 discontent seen. > > (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. The document passes ID nits. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. > (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? No. > (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. > (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). The IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd. All protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. > (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. None. > (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. N/A |
|
2016-05-26
|
06 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt |
|
2016-04-04
|
05 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05.txt |
|
2016-03-22
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from Dead |
|
2016-03-16
|
04 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-04.txt |
|
2016-02-12
|
03 | Matt Hartley | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2016-02-12
|
03 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-03.txt |
|
2016-02-05
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2016-02-05
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
|
2016-02-04
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Issues raised during IETF Last Call need to be resolved. Recommend another WG Last Call should be done due to changes. |
|
2016-02-04
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
|
2016-02-04
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2016-02-04
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Expert Review |
|
2016-01-04
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Niclas Comstedt. |
|
2015-12-15
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to none from draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect.all@ietf.org |
|
2015-10-19
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect.all@ietf.org |
|
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from vbeeram@juniper.net, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect.shepherd@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect.ad@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2015-10-05
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2015-10-01
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Hoffman. |
|
2015-09-24
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2015-09-22
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-09-22
|
02 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02. 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-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete. First, in he Attribute Flags subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/ the following temporary assignment will be made permanent and the reference will be set to [ RFC-to-be ]: Bit No Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference Flags Path Flags Resv ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- --------- OLD: 12 SRLG collection Flag (TEMPORARY - registered 2014-09-11, extension registered 2015-08-27, expires 2016-09-11) Yes Yes Yes No [draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect][RFC7570] NEW: 12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [this document][RFC7570] Second, in the Sub-object type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record subregistry in the RSVP Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/ the following temporary assignment will be made permanent and the reference will be set to [ RFC-to-be ]: Value Description Reference --------------------- ------------------- --------- OLD: 34 SRLG sub-object (TEMPORARY - registered 2014-09-11, extension registered 2015-08-27, expires 2016-09-11) [draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect] NEW: 34 SRLG sub-object [this document] Third, in the Sub-Codes 2 Policy Control Failure subregistry of the Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes registry in the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/ the following temporary assignment will be made permanent and the reference will be set to [ RFC-to-be ]: Value Description Reference --------------------- ----------------------- --------- OLD: 21 SRLG Recording Rejected (TEMPORARY - registered 2014-09-11, extension registered 2015-08-27, expires 2016-09-11) [draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect] NEW: 21 SRLG Recording Rejected [this document] IANA understands that these three actions are the only actions required 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. |
|
2015-09-21
|
02 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
|
2015-09-17
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
|
2015-09-17
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
|
2015-09-11
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
|
2015-09-11
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
|
2015-09-11
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
|
2015-09-11
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
|
2015-09-10
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-09-10
|
02 | 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: <teas@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: <teas@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02.txt> (RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information' <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02.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 2015-09-24. 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 provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2478/ |
|
2015-09-10
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2015-09-10
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2015-09-09
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2015-09-09
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2015-09-09
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2015-09-09
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2015-09-09
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-08-25
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2015-07-14
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to vbeeram@juniper.net, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect.shepherd@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect.ad@ietf.org from "Deborah Brungard" <db3456@att.com>, "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" <vbeeram@juniper.net> |
|
2015-07-13
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. … > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. > > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, > Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Track. > Why is this the proper type of RFC? The document defines RSVP related formats and behaviors. > Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes. > > (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 > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP). > 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? This document moved from the CCAMP WG to TEAS WG as part of the routing WG changes. The progress of the draft through the WG (first CCAMP, then TEAS) has been smooth. > > 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? The base (G)MPLS RSVP protocol has been implemented. The extensions defined in this document are compatible with earlier implementations. While there have been no public statements on implementation, the authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation is expected. > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Vishnu Pavan Beeram > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard > > (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 as it has progressed through the WG (first CCAMP, then TEAS). The Shepherd believes this document 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? No. > If so, describe the review that took place. N/A. > > (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 specific 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, see threads http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16689.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16704.html > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. Yes, an IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document (http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2478/). The discussion surrounding this disclosure is captured in the following thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16704.html. The conclusion from the discussion was that the disclosure, though a bit late in the process than expected, was made with the intent to comply with IETF’s IPR disclosure policy. > (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 among those who are interested. "strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable characterization. > (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 discontent seen. > > (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. The document passes ID nits. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. > (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? No. > (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. > (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). The IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd. All protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. > (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. None. > (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. N/A |
|
2015-07-13
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-07-13
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2015-07-13
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2015-07-13
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2015-07-13
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2015-07-12
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-07-06
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
|
2015-06-25
|
02 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02.txt |
|
2015-06-12
|
01 | Matt Hartley | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-01.txt |
|
2015-03-10
|
00 | Vishnu Beeram | Notification list changed to "Deborah Brungard" <db3456@att.com>, "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" <vbeeram@juniper.net> from "Deborah Brungard" <db3456@att.com> |
|
2015-03-10
|
00 | Vishnu Beeram | Document shepherd changed to Vishnu Pavan Beeram |
|
2014-12-12
|
00 | Lou Berger | LC complete, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00041.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16854.html |
|
2014-12-12
|
00 | Lou Berger | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
|
2014-12-12
|
00 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2014-12-12
|
00 | Lou Berger | Notification list changed to "Deborah Brungard" <db3456@att.com> |
|
2014-12-12
|
00 | Lou Berger | Document shepherd changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2014-12-12
|
00 | Lou Berger | This document now replaces draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect instead of None |
|
2014-12-12
|
00 | Oscar de Dios | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00.txt |