idnits 2.17.1 draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-mib-update-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 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 306. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 188. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 195. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 201. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 283 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 159, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2780' is mentioned on line 162, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3692' is mentioned on line 165, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-02 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 3 IETF INTERNET-DRAFT T. Otani 4 Intended status: Informational M. Miyazawa 5 Expires:May 16, 2008 KDDI R&D Labs 6 Nov. 11, 2007 8 GMPLS MIB family update 10 Document: draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-mib-update-00.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 Abstract 35 This memo describes the necessity of generalized multi-protocol label 36 switching (GMPLS) management information base (MIB) family update. 37 Since the establishment of basic GMPLS protocol specifications, 38 additional functionalities has been proposed and standardized so far, 39 such as recovery, call support, optical transport network (OTN) 40 support and so forth. Coinciding with these additional specifications, 41 GMPLS MIB family is also desired to be updated to manage GMPLS 42 networks appropriately. This document is to clarify missing pieces in 43 currently defined GMPLS MIB family due to the enhancement of original 44 GMPLS protocols. 46 Table of Contents 48 Status of this Memo................................................ 1 49 Abstract........................................................... 1 50 1. Introduction.................................................... 3 51 2. Conventions used in this document............................... 3 52 3. GMPLS MIB family................................................ 3 53 4. GMPLS protocol updates.......................................... 3 54 5. Missing pieces of GMPLS MIB Family.............................. 4 55 6. Security consideration.......................................... 4 56 7. IANA Considerations............................................. 4 57 8. Acknowledgement................................................. 5 58 9. Intellectual property considerations............................ 5 59 10. References..................................................... 5 60 11. Author's Addresses............................................. 6 61 Document expiration................................................ 7 62 Copyright statement................................................ 7 64 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 2 65 1. Introduction 67 With standardizing basic GMPLS protocols, ccamp WG has also defined 68 related GMPLS MIBs to manage label switched routers (LSRs), label 69 switched paths (LSPs) and TE links. However, as the time being, 70 additional functionalities have been proposed and standardized so far, 71 such as recovery, call support, OTN support and so forth. Coinciding 72 with these specifications, GMPLS MIB family is desired to be updated 73 to manage GMPLS networks appropriately. This document is to clarify 74 missing pieces in currently defined GMPLS MIB family due to the 75 enhancement of GMPLS protocols and to propose to start the update 76 work of GMPLS MIB family. 78 2. Conventions used in this document 80 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 81 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 82 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 84 3. GMPLS MIB family 86 CCAMP WG created series of GMPLS MIB specification so far to manage 87 label switched routers (LSRs), label switched paths (LSPs) and 88 traffic engineering (TE) links, accompanying with MPLS MIBs created 89 in MPLS WG, summarized as follows, 91 (1) GMPLS TC MIB: [RFC4801] 92 (2) LSRs (Nodes) 93 - GMPLS LSR MIB: [RFC4803] 94 (MPLS LSR MIB: [RFC3813]) 95 (3) LSPs (Paths) 96 - GMPLS TE MIB: [RFC4802] 97 (MPLS TE MIB: [RFC3812]) 98 (4) TE Links (Links) 99 - LMP MIB: [RFC4631] 100 (TE link MIB: [RFC4220]) 102 CCAMP WG is also working for the MIB specification to manage TE 103 database information. 105 (5) TE database (routing) 106 - TEDB MIB: [GMPLS-TED-MIB] 108 4. GMPLS protocol updates 110 Since the establishment of the original GMPLS protocol specifications, 111 additional functionalities have been added so far summarized as 112 follows. 114 Original signaling specifications [RFC3471, RFC3473] were mainly 115 updated for the inclusion of 117 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 3 118 - Egress support [RFC4003] 119 - OTN support [RFC4328] 120 - Exclude route [RFC4874] 121 - Recovery of end-to-end and segment-by-segment [RFC4872, RFC4873] 122 - Call support [RFC4974] 124 Moreover, in the future, this will be also updated by 125 - Ethernet support 126 - Lambda support 128 5. Missing pieces of GMPLS MIB Family 130 Here is a possible list of future inclusion to GMPLS MIB Family. 131 Inclusion will be determined according to GMPLS OAM requirements 132 [GMPLS-OAM-REQ]. 134 (1) Node 135 - Ingress and Egress port control information of each LSP 136 - OTN label as GMPLS label types 137 - Administrative status of cross-connections for recovery purpose 139 (2) Paths 140 - GMPLS recovery types of LSPs 141 - LSP status information related with recovery 142 - Ingress/Egress port information of GMPLS LSPs 144 (3) Link 145 - OTN as an encoding type 147 6. Security consideration 149 This document introduces no new security considerations in [RFC3471] 150 and [RFC3471]. 152 7. IANA Considerations 154 A. Must specify if IANA has to create a new registry or modify rules 155 for an existing registry. 156 B. Must specify if the document requires IANA to assign or update 157 values in an IANA registry before RFC publication. 158 C. See "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in 159 RFCs" [RFC2434] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 160 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs, " October 1998.) and 161 in some cases also "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the 162 Internet Protocol and Related Headers" [RFC2780] (Bradner, S. and V. 163 Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet 164 Protocol and Related Headers, " March 2000.). In some case "Assigning 165 Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] (Narten, 166 T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful," 167 January 2004.) may help as well. 168 D. 170 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 4 171 If there is no action for IANA, the section should say that, e.g., 172 including something like "This document has no actions for IANA." 174 8. Acknowledgement 176 The authors would like to express their thanks to Adrian Farrel for 177 the discussion. 179 9. Intellectual property considerations 181 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 182 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 183 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 184 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 185 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 186 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 187 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 188 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 190 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 191 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 192 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 193 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 194 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 195 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 197 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 198 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 199 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 200 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 201 ipr@ietf.org. 203 10. References 205 10.1. Normative References 207 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 208 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 210 [RFC4801] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Definitions of Textual 211 Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 212 Management", RFC4801, Feb. 2007. 214 [RFC4803] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol 215 Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management 216 Information Base", RFC4803, Feb. 2007. 218 [RFC3813] C. Srinivasan, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching 219 (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base 220 (MIB)", RFC3813, June 2004. 222 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 5 224 [RFC4802] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol 225 Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information 226 Base", RFC4802, Feb. 2007. 228 [RFC3812] C. Srinivasan, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching 229 (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", 230 RFC3812, June 2004. 232 [RFC4631] M. Dubuc, et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) 233 Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC4631, Sept. 2006. 235 [RFC4220] M. Dubuc, et al., "Traffic Engineering Link Management 236 Information Base", RFC4220, Nov. 2005. 238 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 239 (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. 241 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 242 (MPLS} Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineering 243 (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 245 [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", 246 RFC4003, Feb. 2005. 248 [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 249 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport 250 Networks Control", RFC4328, Jan. 2007. 252 [RFC4874] CY. Lee, et al., "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource 253 ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ", RFC4874, April 254 2007. 256 [RFC4872] J.P. Lang, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to- 257 End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", 258 RFC4872, May 2007. 260 [RFC4873] L. Berger, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC4873, May 2007. 262 [RFC4974] D. Papadimitriou, et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE 263 Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC4974, Aug. 2007. 265 10.2. Normative References 267 [GMPLS-TED-MIB] T. Otani, et al., "Traffic Engineering Database 268 Management Information Base in support of GMPLS", draft-ietf-ccamp- 269 gmpls-ted-mib-02.txt, July 2007. 271 [GMPLS-OAM-REQ] T. Nadeau, et al, "OAM Requirements for Generalized 272 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp- 273 gmpls-oam-requirements-00.txt, Oct. 2007. 275 11. Author's Addresses 277 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 6 278 Tomohiro Otani 279 KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. 280 2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino Phone: +81-49-278-7357 281 Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: otani@kddilabs.jp 283 Masanori Miyazawa 284 KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. 285 2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino Phone: +81-49-278-7559 286 Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: ma-miyazawa@kddilabs.jp 288 Document expiration 290 This document will be expired in May 16, 2008, unless it is updated. 292 Copyright statement 294 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 296 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 297 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 298 retain all their rights. 300 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 301 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 302 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 303 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 304 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 305 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 306 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 308 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 7