Re: Draft liaison 2 : Notification of new RFCs

["tom.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Ross Callon" <[e-mail]>; "Scott Bradner" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:20 PM
Subject: Draft liaison 2 : Notification of new RFCs


> 
> I think this is pretty non-controversial.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Adrian
> 
> =======
> 
> To: ITU-T SG15
> From: IETF CCAMP
> For Information
> 
> The CCAMP working group of the IETF would like to inform you of
> the publication of three new RFCs (Request for Comment) that may

Three new RFC. Now let me see, that would be

RFC4872 one
RFC4873 two
RFC4874 two point five
RFC4875 two point seven five
RFC4920 three

Yup, that is three new RFC:-)

Tom Petch

> be relevant to your work.
> 
> RFC 4872
> Title
>    RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
>    Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
>    Recovery
> Abstract
>    This document describes protocol-specific procedures and extensions
>    for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource
>    ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling to
>    support end-to-end Label Switched Path (LSP) recovery that denotes
>    protection and restoration.  A generic functional description of
>    GMPLS recovery can be found in a companion document, RFC 4426.
> 
> RFC 4873
> Title
>    GMPLS Segment Recovery
> Abstract
>    This document describes protocol specific procedures for GMPLS
>    (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) RSVP-TE (Resource
>    ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering) signaling extensions to
>    support label switched path (LSP) segment protection and restoration.
>    These extensions are intended to complement and be consistent with
>    the RSVP-TE Extensions for End-to-End GMPLS Recovery (RFC 4872).
>    Implications and interactions with fast reroute are also addressed.
>    This document also updates the handling of NOTIFY_REQUEST objects.
> 
> RFC 4874
> Title
>    Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-
>    Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
> Abstract
>    This document specifies ways to communicate route exclusions during
>    path setup using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
>    (RSVP-TE).
> 
>    The RSVP-TE specification, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
>    Tunnels" (RFC 3209) and GMPLS extensions to RSVP-TE, "Generalized
>    Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
>    Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions" (RFC 3473) allow
>    abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path
>    setup, but not to be explicitly excluded.
> 
>    In some networks where precise explicit paths are not computed at the
>    head end, it may be useful to specify and signal abstract nodes and
>    resources that are to be explicitly excluded from routes.  These
>    exclusions may apply to the whole path, or to parts of a path between
>    two abstract nodes specified in an explicit path.  How Shared Risk
>    Link Groups (SRLGs) can be excluded is also specified in this
>    document.
> 
> RFC 4875
> Title
>    Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic 
>    Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label 
>    Switched Paths (LSPs)
> Abstract
>    This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
>    Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the set up of Traffic Engineered
>    (TE) point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi-
>    Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
>    networks.  The solution relies on RSVP-TE without requiring a
>    multicast routing protocol in the Service Provider core.  Protocol
>    elements and procedures for this solution are described.
> 
>    There can be various applications for P2MP TE LSPs such as IP
>    multicast.  Specification of how such applications will use a P2MP TE
>    LSP is outside the scope of this document.
> 
> RFC 4920
> Title
>    Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE
> Abstract
>    In a distributed, constraint-based routing environment, the
>    information used to compute a path may be out of date.  This means
>    that Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
>    (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) setup
>    requests may be blocked by links or nodes without sufficient
>    resources.  Crankback is a scheme whereby setup failure information
>    is returned from the point of failure to allow new setup attempts to
>    be made avoiding the blocked resources.  Crankback can also be
>    applied to LSP recovery to indicate the location of the failed link
>    or node.
> 
>    This document specifies crankback signaling extensions for use in
>    MPLS signaling using RSVP-TE as defined in "RSVP-TE: Extensions to
>    RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, and GMPLS signaling as defined in
>    "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
>    Functional Description", RFC 3473.  These extensions mean that the
>    LSP setup request can be retried on an alternate path that detours
>    around blocked links or nodes.  This offers significant improvements
>    in the successful setup and recovery ratios for LSPs, especially in
>    situations where a large number of setup requests are triggered at
>    the same time.
> 
> All IETF RFCs can be downloaded for free from
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
> 
> The current work plan and progress status of the CCAMP working group
> can be viewed at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html
> 
> As always, the CCAMP working group welcomes questions and discussion
> about all of its work from individuals or organisations.
> 
> The CCAMP mailing list is open to anyone. Details of subscription can
> be found on the CCAMP charter page.
> 
> Best regards,
> Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard
> Co-chairs, IETF CCAMP Working Group