Subject: RE: CORRECTION: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:15:35 -0500

A crankback TLV is suggested in Section 4.3.  While crankback is a desirable extension to both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE (and required by ASON), the proposal ignores the prior work done in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-04.txt.  The advantages of the proposed method should be identified and justified.  

Furthermore, crankback is not yet within the charter of any IETF Working Group, although this has been proposed (e.g., the IETF-54/CCAMP minutes state 'The charter update is way overdue. Items may be added - protection/restoration, crankback and multi-area operations'). It seems inappropriate to specify a particular crankback extension independent of the possible future work of an IETF Working Group.

Jerry Ash

-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: CORRECTION: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to
Informational

**PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A TWO WEEK LAST CALL.**

The IESG has received a request to consider CR-LDP Extensions for ASON 
<draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt> as an Informational RFC.  
This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF 
Working Group.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the 
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2003-1-15.

Files can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:51:53 -0500

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I think it is important to document
extensions and modifications made by other bodies to IETF protocols.

I would caution against progressing this draft until the referenced ITU material
(G.7713.3) has reached consent within the ITU since to move it forward at this
stage as an informational RFC might be misleading.

At that point, perhaps Osama could clarify in the draft, that this draft
introduces no new TLVs, messages or procedures others than those already agreed
within the ITU. That is, that this draft is truly informational. Currently the
text reads as though this draft is, itself, defining new material.

With regard to the crankback extensions described in the draft, I would question
whether the information contained in the new Crankback TLV is sufficient to
handle all scenarios and would urge the author to examine
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-04.txt.  It might
be helpful if the draft expanded the description of the contents of the ER-HOP
TLV that is included in the Crankback TLV. However, if the purpose of the draft
is simply to report on the decisions made within the ITU, and if the ITU has
determined that the extensions documented here are sufficient for their purposes
then there is no further work required.

It might be useful in the context of this draft for the author to comment on the
process which led to the definition of the extensions described, why they are
deemed sufficient, and what issues remain to be addressed. This would be
beneficial because the IETF readership has, in general, not been party to the
debate within the ITU.

It would be helpful if, for the error codes, there was some indication of the
circumstances under which the codes can be generated and the actions that should
be taken on receipt of a code. For many, the answers are intuitive (which is not
to say that they should not be described) but for others some description is
necessary.

With regard to IANA considerations...
Has the ITU already assigned TLV and error code numbers? (or in the process of
doing so for G.7713.3). If so, I suggest that this draft should indicate those
numbers. If not, are you asking IANA to allocate numbers from within the space
intended for IETF standardization in which case, how is this draft wholly
informational?

Please note that the correct expansion of GMPLS is Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching, and that the correct expansion of CR-LDP is Constraint-based
Routed Label Distribution Protocol.

In section 4.3, "Crankbck" should read "Crankback"

Should the security section reference draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-07.txt
rather than RFCs 3036 and 3212? After all, this is really a GMPLS not an MPLS
draft.

References should be split as informational and normative.

Should G.7713.3 be listed as a distinct reference (other than G.7713)?

Regards,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: CORRECTION: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to
Informational

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:44:31 +0100

Adrian,

trying to understand what you are saying - it seems like you are
implying that there is no consensus with in ITU on how to progress
this, and that therefore would be premature for IETF to publish
this as an informational RFC. Correct?

Anyhow - I think it would be appropriate to add a note clarifying that
IETF will not progress cr-ldp beyond Proposed Standard.

/Loa

Adrian Farrel wrote:
< snip >

-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:20:11 -0500

> this as an informational RFC. Correct?

I'm not quite saying that.
I am saying that it sounds to me from the discussion that the ITU has not yet
reached consent. It seemed to me that if the draft is intended to document the
ITU preferences as informational, it would be as well to wait until the ITU has
fully signed off. I don't see any rush for this.

Adrian

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 18:22:47 +0100

Adrian,

> fully signed off. I don't see any rush for this.

ok - I can see the difference - and it seems that you are correct. If
the ITU discussion still has some way to go before the discussion
settles and the preferences better known - wouldn't it be appropriate to 
wait until this happens?

Osama, care to comment?

/Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 18:22:47 +0100

Adrian,

Osama, care to comment?

/Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:20:11 -0500

Adrian

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:44:31 +0100

Adrian,

/Loa

Adrian Farrel wrote:
< snip >

-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]