RFC 7446 on Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7446 Title: Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks Author: Y. Lee, Ed., G. Bernstein, Ed., D. Li, W. Imajuku Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: February 2015 Mailbox:leeyo...@huawei.com, gr...@grotto-networking.com, da...@huawei.com, imajuku.wat...@lab.ntt.co.jp Pages: 23 Characters: 48370 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag:draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-24.txt URL:https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7446 This document provides a model of information needed by the Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) process in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). The purpose of the information described in this model is to facilitate constrained optical path computation in WSONs. This model takes into account compatibility constraints between WSON signal attributes and network elements but does not include constraints due to optical impairments. Aspects of this information that may be of use to other technologies utilizing a GMPLS control plane are discussed. This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC
RFC 7448 on MIB Transfer from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 WG
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7448 Title: MIB Transfer from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 WG Author: T. Taylor, Ed., D. Romascanu Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: February 2015 Mailbox:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com, droma...@avaya.com Pages: 7 Characters: 12501 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag:draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01.txt URL:https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7448 This document records the transfer of responsibility for the Ethernet-related MIB modules DOT3-OAM-MIB, SNMP-REPEATER-MIB, POWER-ETHERNET-MIB, DOT3-EPON-MIB, EtherLike-MIB, EFM-CU-MIB, ETHER-WIS, and MAU-MIB from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 Working Group (WG). This document also describes the procedures associated with the transfer in a similar way to how RFC 4663 records the transfer of the IETF Bridge MIB work to the IEEE 802.1 WG. This document is a product of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC
List of Accepted Nominations for the IETF appointment to the ISOC BoT
Dear Colleagues, The IAB is responsible for selecting two individuals to serve 3-year terms on the ISOC Board of Trustees. The procedure is described in RFC3677. The candidates who accepted their nominations are: - Richard Barnes - Gonzalo Camarillo - Hago Dafalla - Russell Housley - John Levine - Jordi Palet Martinez - David Meyer We solicit feedback on these candidates by March 26, 2015. Please send your response to ex...@iab.org. If you would like your feedback to be anonymized, please indicate such in your response. The IAB expects to finalize its selections around April 1, 2015. The IESG will confirm the candidates by April 30, 2015 and the appointees will begin serving as new board of trustee members in June. Kind regards, --Cindy Morgan IAB Executive Administrative Manager
Document Action: 'Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-10.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements' (draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-10.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Spencer Dawkins and Martin Stiemerling. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem/ Technical Summary This memo presents an access rate-measurement problem statement for test protocols to measure IP Performance Metrics. The rate measurement scenario has wide-spread attention of Internet access subscribers and seemingly all industry players, including regulators. Key test protocol aspects require the ability to control packet size on the tested path and enable asymmetrical packet size testing in a controller-responder architecture. Working Group Summary A controversial topic regards the level of requirement for the capability to control asymmetric packet sizes in two-way testing architectures. A few participants felt that the document should not require asymmetric packet sizes, even though there are a number of cases where it would appear asymmetric packets sizes would be essential to measure the path capacity accurately. As a compromise, the author updated the document to require asymmetric packet rate generation, and both symmetric and asymmetric packet sizes are recommended. The many circumstances where asymmetric packet size testing is needed are documented, and many of these circumstances would be unknown prior to comparative tests using symmetric and asymmetric packet sizes. Document Quality The draft was reviewed by many members of WG. There are already standards track protocol extension proposals that respond to the requirements in this draft. At least one protocol solution has been implemented and deployed. Personnel The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny. The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.
Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-09.txt (OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints' draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-09.txt 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 i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-02-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) can be used to control a wide variety of technologies including packet switching (e.g., MPLS), time-division (e.g., SONET/SDH, Optical Transport Network (OTN)), wavelength (lambdas), and spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). In some of these technologies, network elements and links may impose additional routing constraints such as asymmetric switch connectivity, non- local label assignment, and label range limitations on links. This document describes Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol extensions to support these kinds of constraints under the control of GMPLS. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1697/
Protocol Action: 'The I-JSON Message Format' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-json-i-json-06.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'The I-JSON Message Format' (draft-ietf-json-i-json-06.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the JavaScript Object Notation Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Barry Leiba. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-i-json/ Technical Summary This document defines a profile of JSON (RFC 7159). This profile further restricts characters, numbers, object members; it also provides additional recommendations for protocol use. Working Group Summary The WG discussion was not as extensive as for RFC 7159, but still broad. Two major points were brought up in WG Last Call: defining a link relation profile URI, and the use of base64 versus bsae64url. It was suggested that a profile URI be defined as an alternative to defining a media type or media type suffix (which is also not defined in this document). However, the WG could not reach consensus on this change. There was considerable debate over the use of base64 versus base64url. The WG consensus was that binary data be encoded as some form of base64 but could not reach any consensus on which specific variant. The document first specified base64url and without consensus to change it, it remains the recommendation in the document. Document Quality Overall, the consensus on publishing this document is rough. At least one participant still questions its utility. Personnel Matthew Miller (JSON WG co-chair) is the document shepherd Pete Resnick is the responsible AD. IANA Note There are no IANA Considerations.
Last Call: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-06.txt (Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the Network-Based Mobility Extensions WG (netext) to consider the following document: - 'Mapping PMIPv6 QoS Procedures with WLAN QoS procedures' draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-06.txt as Informational RFC 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 i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-02-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document provides guidelines for achieving end to end Quality- of-Service (QoS) in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) domain where the access network is based on IEEE 802.11. RFC 7222 describes QoS negotiation between a Mobility Access Gateway (MAG) and Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in a PMIPv6 mobility domain. The negotiated QoS parameters can be used for QoS policing and marking of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the MAG and LMA. IEEE 802.11-2012, Wi-Fi Multimedia - Admission Control (WMM-AC) describes methods for QoS negotiation between a Wi-Fi Station (MN in PMIPv6 terminology) and an Access Point. This document provides a mapping between the above two sets of QoS procedures and the associated QoS parameters. This document is intended to be used as a companion document to RFC 7222 to enable implementation of end to end QoS. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
