[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05.txt
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05.txt
Intended status : Standards Track
This draft may be considered in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-
interas-te-extension-02.txt, but it is *not* required to process the
I-Ds in parallel.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
I-D has had a good level of discussions and review in CCAMP and in the
OSPF working group. In particular, it received considerable input from
OSPF experts in its early stages.
Document Shepherd believes reviews to have been adequate.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No concerns.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.
The document is sound.
(1.e) 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?
Consensus is good.
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No threats. No discontent.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
All checks made.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
References split.
No downrefs.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
IANA section checked.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
No such formal language is used.
(1.k) 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.
Traffic engineering extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have been defined
and are used in support of MPLS-TE and GMPLS. The extensions provide a
way of encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the
network and flooding this information within an OSPF area.
When establishing inter-AS MPLS-TE or GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
a path is computed one AS at a time. This path may be computed using
conventional techniques at the first ASBR of each AS, or by using
Path Computation Elements (PCEs) as specified by the PCE working group.
In either case, if two ASes are connected by more than one inter-AS TE
link, it is helpful for the computation point to know the capabilities
of the available TE links in order to select a suitable path.
This document describes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 to flood TE
information about inter-AS links. New LSAs are defined for this purpose
in order to support transparent backward compatibility and to support
the potential use of separate OSPF flooding instances.
This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise
any other extra-AS TE information. This means that there is no proposal
to distribute TE information from one AS within another AS. Nor is there
any mechanism proposed to define or distribute "TE reachability"
information.
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?
WG has good consensus.
Three points arose during working group discussions that are worth
noting. All points were resolved satisfactorily.
1. OSPFv3 Support
The OSPF working group requested that this I-D consider OSPFv3 as well
as the OSPFv2 extensions that it was originally limited to. In return,
the OSPF working group is last calling the OSPFv3-TE extensions that
are a pre-requisite.
2. OSPFv2 Separate Opaque LSA
The original proposal in this I-D used extensions to the OSPFv2 opaque
LSA used from flooding information about intra-domain TE links. This
has been changed after requests from the OSPF working group to use a
different opaque LSA enabling easier backward compatibility and more
flexible transition to multi-instance OSPF in the future.
3. No Change to Scaling/Flooding Paradigm
Many people within CCAMP expressed a concern that the I-D might indicate
the intention to distribute TE information from one AS into another AS.
This would obviously break the as-based scaling and confidentiality
paradigms of IGP routing. The authors were very clear that this was not
the intention and have added a specific section to cover non-objectives.
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?
There is a known implementation of the OSPFv2 extensions. There was also
good support for the work from other vendors with the same objectives.
There is no known implementation of the OSPFv3 extensions.
Document review by Acee Lindem deserves special mention for its care
and thoroughness.