The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt Technical Summary In certain networking topologies, it may be advantageous to maintain associations between endpoints and key transit points to support an instance of a service. Such associations are known as Calls. A Call does not provide the actual connectivity for transmitting user traffic, but only builds a relationship by which subsequent Connections may be made. In Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) such Connections are known as Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This document specifies how GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling may be used and extended to support Calls. These mechanisms provide full and logical Call/Connection separation. This creates a building block that is useful for other CCAMP efforts (GMPLS support for VCAT, GMPLS control of MS-SPRing, ASON, ... -- see PROTO writeup). Working Group Summary No dissent reported. Some have questioned whether this was needed, but the need is becoming clearer as other CCAMP work progresses. Protocol Quality Ross Callon reviewed this for the IESG. There is at least one implementation. Also, the document has been updated based on Security Directorate comments by Magnus Nyström, Gen-ART comments from Suresh Krishnan, and an IANA question from Yoshiko Chong. Note to RFC Editor please update Section 9.1, paragraph 3 as follows: OLD: Note, additionally, that the process of independent Call establishment, where the Call is set up separately from the LSPs, may be used to apply an extra level of authentication and policy for the end-to-end LSPs above that which is available with Call-less, hop-by-hop LSP setup. NEW: Note, additionally, that it would be desirable to use the process of independent Call establishment, where the Call is set up separately from the LSPs, to apply an extra level of authentication and policy for the end-to-end LSPs above that which is available with Call-less, hop-by-hop LSP setup. However doing so will require additional work to set up security associations between the peer and the call manager that meet the requirements of [RFC4107]. The mechanism described in this document is expected to meet this use case when combined with this additional work. Application of this mechanism to the authentication and policy use case prior to standardization of a security solution is inappropriate and outside the current applicability of the mechanism. Also, please update some out of date references. Please reference RFC 4302 instead of RFC 2402, and reference RFC 4303 instead of RFC 2406. IESG Note (Insert IESG Note here) IANA Note (Insert IANA Note here) _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
