Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS
RFC 8779
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-07-22
|
16 | (System) | IANA registries were updated to include RFC8779 |
2020-07-21
|
16 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8779, changed title to 'Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS', changed abstract … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8779, changed title to 'Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS', changed abstract to 'A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified in RFC 7025. This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control plane to address those requirements.', changed pages to 38, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2020-07-21, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
2020-07-21
|
16 | (System) | RFC published |
2020-07-13
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-05-11
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-03-30
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-12-20
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2019-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-12-18
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-12-17
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-12-17
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-12-16
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-12-16
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-12-16
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-12-16
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-12-16
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-12-16
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-12-16
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-12-16
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-12-16
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-12-16
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-12-16
|
16 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2019-12-12
|
16 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-16.txt |
2019-12-12
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-12-12
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cyril Margaria , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang |
2019-12-12
|
16 | Cyril Margaria | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-12
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my Discuss points! I do have some additional comments on the -15. Section 2.3 I'm still a bit concerned … [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my Discuss points! I do have some additional comments on the -15. Section 2.3 I'm still a bit concerned that the references linked from Table 4 may not provide a clear description of what count as Traffic Parameters for our purposes (and how they are encoded), but not in a way that I can express more concretely. Perhaps this is made clear by some RSVP-TE documents with which I am not familiar. ection 2.5.1 root and other endpoints TLVs are the leaves. The root endpoint MUST be the same for all END-POINTS objects. If the root endpoint is not I'm not sure how broadly scoped this restriction is -- it is, e.g., per-LSP? Section 2.5.2.5 with L bit cleared. At most 2 LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the O bit set, with at most one of these having the U bit set and at most one of these having the U bit cleared. For a given U bit value, if This went MUST->MAY in this rev, though I think it might be fine to just use a lowercase "may", since the requirements language doesn't map terribly well to the restriction we're making. |
2019-11-12
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-10-17
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT items. |
2019-10-17
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-10-17
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-10-17
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-10-17
|
15 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15.txt |
2019-10-17
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-17
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cyril Margaria , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang |
2019-10-17
|
15 | Cyril Margaria | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Vincent Roca. |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot comment] Hi, thanks for this document. I have a discuss point that shouldn't be difficult to resolve: Why do you define a flag field … [Ballot comment] Hi, thanks for this document. I have a discuss point that shouldn't be difficult to resolve: Why do you define a flag field in the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV if you don't have any flag? I guess the easy answer is that there might be some in the future. If so, I tend to think that creating a registry for that field would be a good thing to do now. -m |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Vigoureux has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] This document makes some well-needed extensions to existing PCEP concepts such as bandwidth, but I'm not convinced that the way they interact with … [Ballot discuss] This document makes some well-needed extensions to existing PCEP concepts such as bandwidth, but I'm not convinced that the way they interact with existing PCEP functionality is sufficiently well specified to admit interoperable implementation. Specifically, we introduce the generalized bandwidth structures and reuse that encoding for the generalized load balancing structures, which includes a notion of "minimum bandwidth specification". But now that the bandwidth specification is a compound data structure instead of a scalar type, it's not guaranteed that we have a strict linear ordering with well-defined minimum. If we consider the specific case of Intserv, do I insist upon all three of the minimum bucket rate, minimum bucket size, and minimum peak data rate? Or perhaps I only care about the peak data rate and not the bucket size/rate. We need more text in order to specify what "minimum" actually means/measures. Similarly, I'm not sure all the referenced generalized bandwidth types/traffic parameters in Section 2.3 clearly indicate which structures/fields we are to incorporate by reference (see COMMENT). Section 2.1.2 says: GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC does not make use of the objects and TLVs defined in this document. Why is this not "the PCC MUST NOT make use of the objects and TLVs defined in this document"? Ignoring the peer's (non-)advertisement and plowing ahead seems like a recipe for non-interoperability. Section 2.5.1 notes that: ::= [] [ []]... For endpoint type Point-to-Multipoint, several endpoint objects MAY be present in the message and each represents a leave, exact meaning depend on the endpoint type defined of the object. If all s represent leaves, then how is the head node specified? I couldn't find a full spcification for some of the fields in the XRO Label subobject (Section 2.7) by chasing the indicated references (see COMMENT). |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 Please expand OTN and WSON on first use. Section 1.4 It's very unclear to me what kind of support, from/by what … [Ballot comment] Section 1 Please expand OTN and WSON on first use. Section 1.4 It's very unclear to me what kind of support, from/by what entities/data structures, under what conditions, these tables are attempting to indicate. We should probably be consistent whether we talk about just "FOO" or "FOO object" as the hanging text for these bulleted lists. From [RFC8282]: o SWITCH-LAYER: address requirements (1, 2 and 3) for the TE-LSP and indicates which layer(s) should be considered, can be used to represent the RSVP-TE generalized label request. [...] nit: this looks like a comma splice. The PCEP extensions defined later in this document to cover the gap are: Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH object (Generalized bandwidth, Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested). I'm confused by this language "new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH object". My understanding was that objects did not nest: that is, objects have a given structure and can sometimes contain TLVs, but do not contain other objects. So, my current understanding is that new objects are introduced that can appear where the BANDWIDTH object would previously have appeared, but they are separate object (type)s from the RFC 5440 BANDWIDTH objects. (This language is used in the next couple items as well.) To be clear, this is at most an editorial consideration, essentially whether to use "introduced for" or something like "introduced akin to". Section 2.1.2 If the PCE does not include the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN message and the PCC does include the TLV, it is RECOMMENDED that the PCC indicates a mismatch of capabilities. Moreover, in case that the PCC does not receive the Indicate how, to whom? Section 2.2 This granularity applies to all links in the path, right? So I can't request label-level granularity for one hop and indicate that I only care about node-level granularity for the other hops? Section 2.3 [similar comments apply here to what I mentioned at the end of Section 1.4] The Bw Spec Type correspond to the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC (Object Class 12) C-Types Should we ask IANA to update the SENDER_TSPEC registry to note that it is used for PCEP as well as RSVP? The encoding of the fields Generalized Bandwidth and Reverse Generalized Bandwidth is the same as the Traffic Parameters carried in RSVP-TE, it can be found in the following references. Object Type Name Reference 2 Intserv [RFC2210] 4 SONET/SDH [RFC4606] 5 G.709 [RFC4328] 6 Ethernet [RFC6003] 7 OTN-TDM [RFC7139] 8 SSON [RFC7792] It's quite confusing to have the table heading be just "object type" when this is the value in the field named "Bw Spec Type" and corresponds to class type values in the SENDER_TSPEC registry. Also, I looked up the Intserv case, and RFC 2210 doesn't really give me a clear picture of what I'm supposed to encode as the "transport parameters". I think it's supposed to be the 12-octet assembly consisting of the token bucket rate, token bucket size, and peak data rate, but I have very low confidence in that assessment. On the other hand, RFC 4606 has a very nice data structure layout in Section 2.1, "SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters". On the gripping hand, there's not a clear "bandwidth" number in that structure that I can apply a comparison to for load-balancing purposes. It doesn't look like I'll have time to check the other four cases right now, but that will need to be done before final publication. Section 2.4 I'm having trouble parsing: The LOAD-BALANCING object [RFC5440] is used to request a set of maximum Max-LSP TE-LSP having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, each TE-LSP having a minimum of bandwidth. Is it intended to read: The LOAD-BALANCING object [RFC5440] is used to request allocation of a set of at most Max-LSP TE-LSPs, having in total the bandwidth specified in BANDWIDTH, with each TE-LSP having at least a specified minimum bandwidth. ? [similar comments apply here to what I mentioned at the end of Section 1.4] Bandwidth Spec Length (16 bits): the total length of the Min Bandwidth Spec field. It is to be noted that the RSVP-TE traffic specification MAY also include TLV different from the PCEP TLVs. The length MUST be strictly greater than 0. It's not entirely clear to me why the note about different TLVs in RSVP-TE and PCEP belongs here. Section 2.5.1 Endpoints label restriction may not be part of the RRO or IRO, they can be included when following [RFC4003] in signaling for egress endpoint, but ingress endpoint properties can be local to the PCC and not signaled. [...] nit: the first comma looks like a comma splice. A PCE not supporting a given Endpoint Type SHOULD respond with a PCErr with Error Type 4, Value TBD "Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS Generalized Endpoint object type". [...] s/TBD/TBA-15/ The TLVs present in the request object body MUST follow the following [RFC5511] grammar: It feels a bit like a type error to use RBNF to describe the layout of TLVs within a TLV block, as RBNF acts on objects. Section 2.5.2.4 The LABEL-REQUEST TLV indicates the switching capability and encoding type of the following label restriction list for the endpoint. Its format and encoding is the same as described in [RFC3471] Section 3.1 Generalized label request. [...] Presumably the "Its" refers to just the value portion of the TLV? That should probably be stated explicitly. Section 2.5.2.5 Is there any reason for the section title to not be "LABEL-SET TLV" for consistency with the other sections? A LABEL-SET TLV represents a set of possible labels that can be used on an interface. If the L bit is cleared, the label allocated on the first endpoint MUST be within the label set range. [...] Is this MUST binding on the PCC that generates a request, or on the computed LSP returned by the PCE? A LABEL-SET TLV with the O and L bit set MUST trigger a PCErr message with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error value="Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O and L bit set". A LABEL-SET TLV with the O bit set and an Action Field not set to 0 (Inclusive list) or containing more than one subchannel MUST trigger a PCErr message with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error value="Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit and wrong format". If a LABEL-SET TLV is present with O bit set, the R bit of the RP object MUST be set, otherwise a PCErr message MUST be sent with error type="Reception of an invalid object" error value="LABEL-SET TLV present with O bit set but without R bit set in RP". nit: I don't know if it makes more sense to use the TBA-25, TBA-26, and TBA-24 values in these descriptions. Section 2.6 The IRO as defined in [RFC5440] is used to include specific objects in the path. RSVP-TE allows to include label definition, in order to fulfill requirement 13 of [RFC7025] the IRO needs to support the new subobject type as defined in [RFC3473]: nit: this looks like a comma splice. (A similar construction appears in Section 2.7 as well.) Section 2.7 U (1 bit): see [RFC3471]. C-Type (8 bits): the C-Type of the included Label Object as defined in [RFC3471]. Label: see [RFC3471]. Sorry, where exactly in RFC 3471? I do not see discussion of a U bit or C-Type therein. (Perhaps RFC 3473 was intended? Though, RFC 3473 seems to refer back to 3471 for the U parameter, again without section reference.) Section 6 It seems that a malicious PCC might be able to effect a denial of service attack on the PCE by attempting to make many requests that consume lots of resources (whether on the PCE itself or in the managed network elements). In addition Technology specific data plane mechanism can be used (following [RFC5920] Section 5.8) to verify the data plane connectivity and deviation from constraints. nit: "In addition, technology-specific" Appendix A It's not entirely clear to me why this specific group of examples was chosen and no others. (The appendix does not seem to be referenced from elsewhere in the document, so it appears fairly random to a reader making it that far.) |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot discuss] Hi, thanks for this document. I have a discuss point that shouldn't be difficult to resolve: Why do you define a flag field … [Ballot discuss] Hi, thanks for this document. I have a discuss point that shouldn't be difficult to resolve: Why do you define a flag field in the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV if you don't have any flag? I guess the easy answer is that there might be some in the future. If so, I tend to think that creating a registry for that field would be a good thing to do now. -m |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-04-11
|
14 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] (1) Section 6, Per “The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place known to the attacker where some sniffing devices … [Ballot discuss] (1) Section 6, Per “The answer can make that the LSP traverses some geographical place known to the attacker where some sniffing devices could be installed”, this is a concern. Good that it is here. However, it seems like the consequences could be even more expansive – confidentiality (sniffing), integrity (modifying the traffic) or availability (choose to drop it). (2) Section 6, [RFC8253] is mentioned a few times as having a variety of capabilities to mitigate the described threats. This is the right reference. However, the current text doesn’t explicitly state whether and how this guidance should be followed (should, must, is recommended?) |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) Section 2.3, Nit (missing commas and periods), s/(SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc)/ (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.)/ (2) In a few section. … [Ballot comment] (1) Section 2.3, Nit (missing commas and periods), s/(SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF etc)/ (SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.)/ (2) In a few section. Typo (duplicate “section Section”). Recommend global s/section Section/Section/g (3) Section 6. Duplicate word. s/against against/against/ |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I think Section 2.1.2 needs to better explain what happens when a PCC sends extensions but the recipient does not support them. Please … [Ballot comment] I think Section 2.1.2 needs to better explain what happens when a PCC sends extensions but the recipient does not support them. Please respond to the Gen-ART review. |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-04-10
|
14 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list. |
2019-04-09
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-04-09
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * Section 2.5.2 "In this object type the order of the TLVs MUST be followed according to the object type definition." Not sure … [Ballot comment] * Section 2.5.2 "In this object type the order of the TLVs MUST be followed according to the object type definition." Not sure what this means. Can you clarify? * Section 2.7 "C-Type (8 bits): the C-Type of the included Label Object as defined in [RFC3471]." I could not find any references to C-Types in RFC3471. Shouldn't you be referring to RFC3473 instead? I have a similar comment for the Label field. |
2019-04-09
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-04-09
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-04-08
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-04-05
|
14 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14.txt |
2019-04-05
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-05
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cyril Margaria , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang |
2019-04-05
|
14 | Cyril Margaria | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-05
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-04-04
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Purely editorial comment: I would recommend to move most of the gap analysis of section 1 (actually most of the text of the … [Ballot comment] Purely editorial comment: I would recommend to move most of the gap analysis of section 1 (actually most of the text of the whole section) into the appendix and only summarise the extensions specified in this doc instead. nit: sec 6: s/In order to protect against against the malicious PCE case/In order to protect against the malicious PCE case/ -> 2x against |
2019-04-04
|
13 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-03-28
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2019-03-28
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2019-03-22
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2019-03-22
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2019-03-20
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-04-11 |
2019-03-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-03-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2019-03-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2019-03-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-03-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-03-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-01-30
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-01-30
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2019-01-30
|
13 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-13.txt |
2019-01-30
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-01-30
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cyril Margaria , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang |
2019-01-30
|
13 | Cyril Margaria | Uploaded new revision |
2019-01-10
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2018-11-29
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Vincent Roca. |
2018-11-27
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Need to address directorate review comments (Last Call). |
2018-11-27
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-11-26
|
12 | Tianran Zhou | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tianran Zhou. Sent review to list. |
2018-11-18
|
12 | Dave Sinicrope | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Dave Sinicrope. |
2018-10-29
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-10-26
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-10-26
|
12 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are nine actions which we must complete. First, in the PCEP Objects registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a set of object types are to be added to existing objects in the registry. Two new object-types to the existing object BANDWIDTH as follows: Object-Class Value: 5 Name: BANDWIDTH the following two, new object types: number: [ TBD-at-Registration ] description: Generalized bandwidth Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.3] number: [ TBD-at-Registration ] description: Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.3] Two new object-types to the existing object LOAD-BALANCING as follows: Object-Class Value: 14 Name: LOAD-BALANCING the following single, new object type: number: [ TBD-at-Registration ] description: Generalized Load Balancing Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.4] Two new object-types to the existing object END-POINTS as follows: Object-Class Value: 4 Name: END-POINTS the following single, new object type: number: [ TBD-at-Registration ] description: Generalized Load Balancing Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.5] Second, a new registry is to be created called the "END-POINTS Object, Object Type Generalized Endpoint" registry. The new registry will be located on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ IANA Question --> Section 5.2 of the current document says "New endpoint type in the Reserved range MAY be allocated by an IETF consensus action." IETF Consensus Action is not a well-known registration policy. Please see section 4 of [RFC8126] for a description of well-known policies and choose the policy best suited for this new registry. The are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Value Type Meaning Reference: -------+-------------------+-------------------------------+---------------- 0 Point-to-Point [ RFC-to-be ] 1 Point-to-Multipoint New leaves to add [ RFC-to-be ] 2 Old leaves to remove [ RFC-to-be ] 3 Old leaves whose path can be [ RFC-to-be ] modified/reoptimized 4 Old leaves whose path has to be [ RFC-to-be ] left unchanged 5-244 Reserved 245-255 Experimental range Third, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ eight, new TLV Type Indicators are to be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: IPV4-ADDRESS Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.5.2.1] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: IPV6-ADDRESS Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.5.2.2] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.5.2.3] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: LABEL-REQUEST Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.5.2.4] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: LABEL-SET Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.5.2.5] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: SUGGESTED-LABEL-SET Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.5.2.5] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.8] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: GMPLS-CAPABILITY Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.1.2] IANA notes that the authors have provided suggested values for these eight new TLVs. Fourth, in the RP Object Flag Field registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration is to be made as follows: Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Routing granularity (RG) Reference: [ RFC-to-be Section 2.2] Fifth, in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ additional error values are to be added to two, existing error values as follows: For: Type=4 Not supported object [RFC5440] The following additional error types: [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Bandwidth Object type TBA or TBA not [ RFC-to-be ] supported. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported endpoint type in END-POINTS [ RFC-to-be ] Generalized Endpoint object type [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported TLV present in END-POINTS [ RFC-to-be ] Generalized Endpoint object type [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported granularity in the RP object [ RFC-to-be ] flags For: Type? Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440] The following additional error types: [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Bad Bandwidth Object type [ RFC-to-be ] [XXXXX](Generalized bandwidth) or [YYYYY](Generalized bandwidth of existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested). [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported LSP Protection Type in [ RFC-to-be ] PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported LSP Protection Flags in [ RFC-to-be ] PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported Secondary LSP Protection [ RFC-to-be ] Flags in PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported Link Protection Type in [ RFC-to-be ] PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unsupported Link Protection Type in [ RFC-to-be ] PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 bit set but [ RFC-to-be ] without R bit set in RP. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Wrong LABEL-SET TLV present with 0 and L [ RFC-to-be ] bit set. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Wrong LABEL-SET with O bit set and wrong [ RFC-to-be ] format. For the Bad Bandwidth Object type error value the value [XXXXX] will be replaced by the object type number for Object-Class Value: 5, Name: BANDWIDTH; Generalized bandwidth number that was created in the first step above. For the Bad Bandwidth Object type error value the value [YYYYY] will be replaced by the object type number for Object-Class Value: 5, Name: BANDWIDTH; Generalized bandwidth of an existing TE-LSP for which a reoptimization is requested number that was created in the first step above. IANA notes that the authors have provided suggested values for these error values. Sixth, also in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a new error type and associated error values are to be registered as follows: The new error type: Type=[ TBD-at-Registration ] Path computation failure [ RFC-to-be ] Its associated error values: Value=0 Unassigned. [ RFC-to-be ] [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Unacceptable request message. [ RFC-to-be ] [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Generalized bandwidth value not [ RFC-to-be ] supported. [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Label Set constraint could not be met. [ RFC-to-be ] [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Label constraint could not be met. [ RFC-to-be ] Seventh, in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ six, new registrations will be made as follows: Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Protection Mismatch Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: No Resource Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Granularity not supported Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: No endpoint label resource Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: No endpoint label resource in range Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: No label resource in range Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors have provided suggested values for these six new registrations. Eighth, the IRO Subobjects registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Label Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors suggest the value 3 for this registration. Ninth, the XRO Subobjects registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Label Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors suggest the value 3 for this registration. The IANA Functions Operator 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-10-18
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2018-10-18
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2018-10-18
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2018-10-18
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2018-10-16
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2018-10-16
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tianran Zhou |
2018-10-16
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Mahesh Jethanandani was rejected |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Julien Meuric , db3546@att.com, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Julien Meuric , db3546@att.com, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (PCEP extensions for GMPLS) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'PCEP extensions for GMPLS' 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 2018-10-29. 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 provides extensions to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2018-10-15
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-10-08
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to David Sinicrope |
2018-10-08
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to David Sinicrope |
2018-10-05
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2018-10-05
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2018-10-05
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | 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 … 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? -> It specifies protocol extensions. 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 Although [RFC4655] defines the PCE architecture and framework for both MPLS and GMPLS networks, most preexisting PCEP RFCs [RFC5440], [RFC5521], [RFC5541], [RFC5520] are focused on MPLS networks, and do not cover the wide range of GMPLS networks. This document complements these RFCs by addressing the extensions required for GMPLS applications and routing requests, for example for OTN and WSON networks. Working Group Summary Though uncontroversial, this work had a long life. Some other work with strong market demand (stateful PCE, mainly) came along and this document got stuck for a while in the WG's and chairs' backlog. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? -> There are several implementations, commercial and open source, of the base protocol. The extensions from this document were implemented (at least partially) by some work from the research community. Open source (OpenDaylight) is in the pipe. Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? -> At lest two vendors worked on the document. The implementation by a few optical vendors is mentioned by some (available) research publications. 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? -> N/a Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? -> Julien Meuric 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. -> Shepherd's comments have been addressed, it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? -> No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. -> 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. -> None (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 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. -> No (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 was a clear consensus on the document. Several other living documents rely on this one, one of them being blocked on it. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. -> Done (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. -> Checked Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. -> OK 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). -> N/a (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. -> N/a (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 |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-01
|
12 | Julien Meuric | Changed document writeup |
2018-09-27
|
12 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12.txt |
2018-09-27
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-27
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cyril Margaria , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang |
2018-09-27
|
12 | Cyril Margaria | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-10
|
11 | Jonathan Hardwick | Notification list changed to Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> |
2017-04-10
|
11 | Jonathan Hardwick | Document shepherd changed to Julien Meuric |
2015-10-18
|
11 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-11.txt |
2014-10-08
|
10 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-10.txt |
2014-07-22
|
09 | Julien Meuric | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2014-02-13
|
09 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09.txt |
2013-07-15
|
08 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-08.txt |
2012-10-22
|
07 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-07.txt |
2012-07-16
|
06 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-06.txt |
2012-03-09
|
05 | Cyril Margaria | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-05.txt |
2011-10-31
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-04.txt |
2011-07-09
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-03.txt |
2011-03-12
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-02.txt |
2010-10-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01.txt |
2010-09-09
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-00.txt |