idnits 2.17.1 draft-asati-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 19. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 238. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 208. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 215. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 221. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (June 2007) is 6159 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3036 (Obsoleted by RFC 5036) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LDPCap' == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-jork-ldp-igp-sync-02 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Rajiv Asati 3 Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Expiration Date: December 2007 5 Bob Thomas 6 Cisco Systems, Inc. 8 June 2007 10 LDP End-of-LIB 12 draft-asati-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-00.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 17 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 18 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 19 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 24 Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The IETF TRUST (2007). 41 Abstract 43 There are situations following LDP session establishment where it 44 would be useful for an LDP speaker to know when its peer has 45 advertised all of its labels. These include session re-establishment 46 following loss of an LDP session when LDP graceful restart is in use 47 and session establishment when LDP-IGP sync is in use. The LDP 48 specification provides no mechanism for an LDP speaker to notify a 49 peer when it has completed its initial label advertisements to that 50 peer. This document specifies means for an LDP speaker to signal 51 completion of its initial label advertisements following session 52 establishment. 54 Table of Contents 56 1 Introduction .......................................... 2 57 2 Specification Language ................................ 3 58 3 Signaling Completion of Initial Label Advertisement ... 3 59 4 IANA Considerations ................................... 4 60 5 Security Considerations ............................... 4 61 6 References ............................................ 4 62 7 Author Information .................................... 5 63 8 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 5 64 9 Full Copyright Statement .............................. 6 66 1. Introduction 68 There are situations following LDP session establishment where it 69 would be useful for an LDP speaker to know when its peer has 70 advertised all of its labels. For example, after an LDP session is 71 re-established when LDP graceful restart [RFC3478] is in effect it 72 would be helpful for each peer to signal the other after it has 73 advertised all its label bindings. Similarly when an LDP speaker is 74 using LDP-IGP synchronization procedures [LDPSynch] it would be 75 useful for the speaker to know when its peer has completed 76 advertisement of its IP label bindings. 78 The LDP specification [RFC3036] provides no mechanism for an LDP 79 speaker to notify a peer when it has completed its initial label 80 advertisements to that peer. 82 This document specifies use of a Notification message with the "End- 83 of-LIB" Status Code for an LDP speaker to signal completion of its 84 label advertisements following session establishment. 86 RFC3036 implicitly assumes that new Status Codes will be defined over 87 the course of time. However, it does not explicitly define the 88 behavior of an LDP speaker which does not understand the Status Code 89 in a Notification message. To avoid backward compatibility issues 90 this document specifies use of the LDP capability mechanism [LDPCap] 91 at session establishment time for informing a peer that an LDP 92 speaker is capable of processing Notification messages that carry the 93 "End-of-LIB" Status Code. 95 2. Specification Language 97 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 98 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 99 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 101 3. Signaling Completion of Initial Label Advertisement 103 An LDP speaker MAY include a Capability Parameter in an 104 Initialization message to inform a peer that it is capable of 105 processing Notification Messages that carry a Status TLV with the 106 End-of-LIB Status Code. 108 The Capability Parameter for the End-of-LIB capability is a TLV with 109 the following format: 111 0 1 2 3 112 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 |U|F| End-of-LIB (IANA) | Length | 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 |S| Reserved | 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 where: 121 U and F bits: As specified by RFC3036. 123 End-of-LIB: TLV code point to be assigned by IANA. 125 S-bit: Must be 1 (indicates that cability is being advertised). 127 An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Notificiation which carries a Status 128 TLV with the End-of-LIB Status Code unless its peer had advertised 129 the End-of-LIB capability during session establishment. 131 If its peer had advertised the End-of-LIB capability during session 132 establishment an LDP speaker MAY signal completion of its label 133 advertisements to the peer by means of a Notification message. Such 134 a Notification message MUST carry: 136 - An "End-of-LIB" Status Code in the Status TLV. This is a new 137 Status Code. 139 - A FEC TLV with the Typed Wildcard FEC Element [TypedWC] that 140 identifies the FEC type for which initial label advertisements 141 have been completed. In terms of Section 3.5.1 of RFC3036 this 142 TLV is an "Optional Parameter" of the Notification message. 144 4. IANA Considerations 146 This draft introduces a new LDP Status Code and a new LDP Capability 147 both of shich require IANA assignment. 149 5. Security Considerations 151 No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP 152 specification and described in [RFC3036] apply to use of the Typed 153 Wildcard FEC Element defined in this document. 155 6. References 157 Normative References 159 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 160 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997. 162 [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and 163 Thomas, B., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. 165 [LDPCap] Thomas, B., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., Le Roux, J.L., 166 "LDP Capabilities", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-capabilities-00, Work in 167 Progress, May 2007. 169 [TypedWC] Thomas, B., Minei, I., "LDP Typed Wildcard FEC", draft- 170 ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-01, Work in Progress, May 2007. 172 Informative References 174 [LDPCap] Thomas, B., Aggarwal, S., Agarwal, R., Le Roux, J.L., "LDP 175 Capabilities", Work in Progreaa, May 2007. 177 [LDPSynch] Jork, M., Atlas, A., Fang, L., "LDP IGP 178 Synchronization", draft-jork-ldp-igp-sync-02, Work in Progress, 179 June 2006. 181 [RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., "Graceful 182 Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol", February 2003. 184 7. Author Information 186 Rajiv Asati 187 Cisco Systems, Inc. 188 Mail Stop RTP6P/2/1 189 7025-6 Kit Creek Road PO Box 14987 190 Research Triangle Park , NORTH CAROLINA 27709-4987 191 Email: rajiva@cisco.com 193 Bob Thomas 194 Cisco Systems, Inc. 195 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 196 Boxborough MA 01719 197 Email: rhthomas@cisco.com 199 8. Intellectual Property Statement 201 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 202 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 203 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 204 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 205 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 206 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 207 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 208 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 210 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 211 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 212 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 213 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 214 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 215 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 217 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 218 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 219 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 220 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 221 ipr@ietf.org. 223 9. Full Copyright Statement 225 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 227 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 228 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 229 retain all their rights. 231 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 232 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 233 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST 234 AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, 235 EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT 236 THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY 237 IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 238 PURPOSE.