Network Working Group L. Andersson (Editor) Internet-Draft Acreo AB Proposed Status: Best Current Practice A. Farrel (Editor) Old Dog Consulting October 2006 Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-04 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The issues surrounding the extensibility of IETF protocols have been widely debated. These issues include when it is reasonable to extend IETF protocols with little or no review, and when extensions or variations need to be reviewed by the larger IETF community. Experience with IETF protocols has shown that extensibility of protocols without early IETF review can cause problems. The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suites of protocols have become popular for a number of applications and deployment scenarios. One result of this popularity is a large number of suggestions for modifications and extensions. Andersson and Farrel [Page 1] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 This document defines a flexible and responsive process for the IETF to handle suggestions for extensions to the MPLS and GMPLS protocols, and clarifies the IETF's responsibility to supervise the growth and evolution of MPLS and GMPLS protocols. The process allows individuals, IETF working groups, and external standards bodies to influence the development of the MPLS and GMPLS standards. When possible, existing liaison relationships are used. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................... 3 1.1 Document Source ............................................... 4 1.2 Conventions Used in this Document ............................. 4 2. Applicability of the (G)MPLS Change Process .................... 4 2.1 IETF Working Groups Developing (G)MPLS Technology ............. 4 2.1.1 Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group ................. 5 2.1.2 Common Control & Measurement Plane Working Group ............ 5 2.1.3 MPLS and CCAMP Division of Work ............................. 6 2.2 Other (G)MPLS Technology Working Groups ...................... 6 2.3 Organizations Outside the IETF ............................... 7 2.4 Terminology .................................................. 7 3. Summary of Procedures .......................................... 9 4. MPLS and GMPLS Change Process ................................ 10 4.1 Flow Diagram ................................................ 11 4.2 Description of Process Stages ............................... 12 4.2.1 Preliminary Investigation .................................. 12 4.2.2 Requirements Statement Evaluation .......................... 12 4.2.3 Chartering the Rewg ........................................ 13 4.2.4 Rewg Evaluation of the Requirements Statement I-D .......... 14 4.2.5 AD Evaluation of Completed Requirements Statement I-D ...... 14 4.2.6 IESG and IAB review of Requirements Statement I-D and Pswg Charter .................................................... 15 4.2.7 Solutions Work ............................................. 15 5. Rejecting Requirements Statements I-D ......................... 16 5.1 Reasons for Rejection ........................................ 16 5.2 Actions Upon Rejection ....................................... 17 6. Abandonment of the Solutions I-D .............................. 18 7. (G)MPLS Integrity ............................................. 19 8. Security Considerations ...................................... 19 9. Acknowledgements ............................................. 20 10. IANA Considerations .......................................... 20 11. References .................................................. 20 11.1 Normative References ....................................... 20 11.2 Informative References ..................................... 20 Andersson and Farrel [Page 2] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 1. Introduction [PROT-EXT] discusses procedural issues related to the extensibility of IETF protocols, including when it is reasonable to extend IETF protocols with little or no review, and when extensions or variations need to be reviewed by the larger IETF community. Experience with IETF protocols has shown that extensibility of protocols without early IETF review can cause problems. The document also recommends that major extensions to or variations of IETF protocols only take place through normal IETF processes or in coordination with the IETF. This document recognizes that the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocol families were created within the IETF and constitute significant protocol suites that are strategic to the development of the Internet. They should not be extended or varied without IETF review, and that should preferably only be extended within the IETF process. The process described in this document allows individuals, IETF working groups, and external standards bodies to influence the development of MPLS and GMPLS protocols and related standards. The process means that MPLS and GMPLS extensions and changes can only be done through or in coordination with the IETF. In particular, the MPLS and/or CCAMP working groups or their successors need to be involved in the process. When possible, existing liaison relationships ([RFC4052], [RFC4053]) are leveraged. The IETF will not endorse the publication of any MPLS or GMPLS protocol or technology extensions in RFCs or other documents where the process described here have not been followed. If publication of individual Internet-Drafts describing extensions or changes to the MPLS or GMPLS protocols is requested of the RFC Editor the documents will be returned to the process described in this document using the mechanism described in [RFC3932]. IANA is responsible for managing many codepoints registries including those for MPLS and GMPLS protocols. These registries have specific allocation policies that IANA uses in order to determine whether codepoints can be allocated and which codepoints to allocate. In many cases, the rules require IANA to refer back to the IETF when asked to make an allocation. In the case of changes or extensions to the MPLS or GMPLS protocols, IANA will use the process described in this document to judge whether or not a code point allocation should be made. The MPLS and GMPLS technology is developed in two main tracks in the IETF. "MPLS" refers to the work done for packet switched networks, while "GMPLS" refers to the efforts to apply the MPLS protocols to all types of networks including packet and non-packet technologies. Though GMPLS by definition is a superset of MPLS, the term "(G)MPLS" Andersson and Farrel [Page 3] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 is used in this document to indicate both of these tracks. A terminology section that covers the use of terms and concepts used in this document is found in Section 2.6. 1.1 Document Source This document is the joint work of the IETF Routing Area Directors, the IETF MPLS and CCAMP Working Group Chairs, and the IETF's liaison to the ITU-T. It has had considerable review and comment from key members of the ITU-T who have given their time and opinions based on experience for which the authors are grateful. The acknowledgements section lists those whose contributions have been particularly helpful. 1.2 Conventions Used in this Document Although this document is not a protocol definition, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This usage is chosen to make the steps and procedures completely clear. 2. Applicability of the (G)MPLS Change Process This section outlines the applicability of the (G)MPLS change process specified in this document. It lists the key IETF working groups developing the (G)MPLS technology, examples of IETF working groups using the (G)MPLS technology, and possible parties interested in using, extending, or changing the (G)MPLS technology. It should be remembered that the IETF environment is highly dynamic. Working groups and whole areas come and go. The overview of the relevant working groups within the IETF is only a snapshot in time. A section listing terminology local to this document that will be used in specifying the change process is also included. 2.1 IETF Working Groups Developing (G)MPLS Technology Two working groups in the IETF's Routing Area have been responsible for work to develop the (G)MPLS technology. The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) working group and the Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) working group. The sections below give brief overviews of the work these two IETF working groups were chartered to do. The IETF may, in the future, define additional working groups to work on specific chartered issues related to (G)MPLS. Further, specific existing working groups such as those listed in section 2.2 may be Andersson and Farrel [Page 4] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 rechartered by the IESG to work on particular aspects of the (G)MPLS protocols. The procedure for chartering new or existing working groups to undertake (G)MPLS work is covered in section 4.2.3. 2.1.1 Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) working group is responsible for standardizing the base technology that uses label switching, and for describing the implementation of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) over various packet and frame-based link level technologies. The working group charter includes procedures and protocols for the distribution of labels between routers, as well as encapsulations, operation and management, traffic engineering, and multicast considerations. The procedures in this document assume that the MPLS working group remains the authority on MPLS technologies, but acknowledges that the IETF may appoint another working group (using the procedures in this document) to handle specific extensions or changes to the protocols. Further, in the event that the MPLS working group completes its work and is closed, the IETF may appoint a Designated Expert (sometimes known as a Caretaker) for the MPLS protocols. 2.1.2 Common Control & Measurement Plane Working Group The IETF Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) working group coordinates the work within the IETF defining common control and measurement planes for ISP and SP core tunneling technologies. This includes, but is not limited to, defining signaling protocols and measurement protocols such that they support multiple physical path and tunnel technologies using input from technology-specific working groups such as the MPLS working group. It also includes the development of protocol-independent metrics and parameters for describing links and paths that can be carried in protocols. The technology that the CCAMP working group focuses on is called Generalized MPLS (GMPLS), indicating that CCAMP addresses a generalized technology, where labels are defined in such a way that they will be compatible with the technology over which the data is transported. While the MPLS working group focuses on packet- and frame-switched technologies, the CCAMP working group work focuses on common methods across a broad spectrum of switching technologies including packet and frame technologies. In this respect, GMPLS can be viewed as a superset of MPLS. The procedures in this document assume that the CCAMP working group remains the authority on GMPLS technologies, but acknowledges that the IETF may appoint another working group (using the procedures in this document) to handle specific extensions or changes to the protocols. Further, in the event that the CCAMP working group completes its work and is closed, the IETF may appoint a Designated Andersson and Farrel [Page 5] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 Expert (sometimes known as a Caretaker) for the GMPLS protocols. 2.1.3 MPLS and CCAMP Division of Work From time to time the MPLS and CCAMP working groups decide to divide work between themselves in a way that does not strictly follow the split between the working groups as defined in the working group charters. This is the case, e.g., for P2MP TE LSPs, where the MPLS working group is specifying requirements and base technology for all of the (G)MPLS technology. An entity or individual that wishes to propose extensions or changes to (G)MPLS should first decide to which working group (MPLS or CCAMP) it will bring the proposal. However, the MPLS and CCAMP working group chairs, in conjunction with their Area Directors, may redirect the proposal to another working group. 2.2 Other (G)MPLS Technology Working Groups Problem statements and requirements for (G)MPLS technology have been produced by several working groups in addition to the MPLS and CCAMP working groups. For example, the IP over Optical (IPO) working group and the Internet Traffic Engineering working group (TEWG). These working groups have not specified any protocols, but have been a source of problem statements and requirements to be considered by the (G)MPLS working groups. Other working groups, e.g., the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) working group, also use the (G)MPLS protocols and mechanisms. When any of these working groups needs to extend or change the (G)MPLS protocols the procedures specified in this document are applicable. The Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) and Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) working groups have been chartered to specify a limited number of solutions for Provider Provisioned VPNs. Both working groups are in the Internet Area. The work of the L2VPN and L3VPN working groups does not include specifying new protocols, however, protocol changes and extensions to the (G)MPLS protocols may be needed. If so, the procedures specified in this document are applicable. The Layer 1 VPN (L1VPN) working group is chartered to specify mechanisms necessary for providing layer 1 VPN services (establishment of layer 1 connections between CE devices) over a GMPLS-enabled transport service-provider network. Protocol extensions required for L1VPN will be done in cooperation with MPLS, CCAMP, OSPF, IS-IS, IDR, L3VPN, and other WGs where necessary. That is, the L1VPN will not develop GMPLS protocol extensions in isolation, but will develop requirements and propose extensions that will be reviewed and approved by the (G)MPLS working groups. Andersson and Farrel [Page 6] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 The Pseudo Wire Emulation End to End (PWE3) working group is another working group in the Internet Area that also uses the (G)MPLS protocols in its specifications. Should the PWE3 specifications require extension or changes to the (G)MPLS protocols the procedures specified in this document are applicable. It is assumed that the change process for the MPLS and CCAMP working groups, specified in this document, will be applicable or at least adaptable to other (G)MPLS technology working groups if such a need should arise. 2.3 Organizations Outside the IETF A number of standards development organizations (SDOs) and industrial forums use or reference the (G)MPLS protocols in their specifications. Some of these organizations have formal liaison relationships with the IETF [RFC4052]. The IETF exchanges information with these organizations about what is happening on both sides, including plans and schedules, using liaison statements [RFC4053]. More details about the cooperation relationship between the IETF and the ITU-T can be found in [RFC3356]. The procedures in this document are applicable to all organizations outside the IETF whether or not they have formal liaison relationships with the IETF. If any organization outside the IETF has a requirement or believes it may have a requirement for extensions or modifications to the (G)MPLS protocols then the procedures in this document apply. It should be noted that the first stage in the change process is an optional Preliminary Investigation (see Section 4.2.1). This stage is explicitly included to allow external organizations to discuss requirements and proposed uses of the (G)MPLS technologies without the need to first develop Internet-Drafts, and builds on existing liaison processes where they exist. 2.4 Terminology This section defines terms for use in the context of this document. o (G)MPLS protocols The (G)MPLS protocols are the protocols and protocol variants developed by the IETF to control, manage, or measure MPLS or GMPLS networks and their component devices. The set of RFCs that constitutes the (G)MPLS protocols are the standards track RFCs from the (G)MPLS working groups (see below). A list of these RFCs is not supplied here since new RFCs are produced from time to time. Andersson and Farrel [Page 7] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 For the purpose of extending and changing any protocols specified in Experimental RFCs developed by the (G)MPLS working groups, those protocols are considered to be part of the (G)MPLS protocols. o (G)MPLS working groups The (G)MPLS working groups are the MPLS and the CCAMP working groups, and any future working group specifically chartered by the IESG to work on the development or extension of the (G)MPLS protocols. o (G)MPLS technology working group Any working group chartered by the IESG to specify requirements for the (G)MPLS protocols, and any working group that specifies a use for the (G)MPLS protocols. This include the (G)MPLS working groups. o Requirement evaluating working group (rewg) The rewg is the IETF working group charged with the task of evaluating a specific set of requirements and the associated problem statement. o Preliminary Investigation An optional preliminary phase that may be used to exchange views on a proposed requirement and usage of the (G)MPLS technologies without going to the effort of writing an Internet-Draft. This phase may be particularly useful to SDOs that have already invested heavily in documenting a problem statement, or may be used by anyone who wishes to hold discussions on the use of (G)MPLS. o Protocol specifying working group (pswg) The pswg is the working group chartered by the IESG to specify changes or extensions to the (G)MPLS protocols either as part of the normal IETF process or in response to a requirements draft. o Problem statement Internet-Draft The Internet-Draft that initiates the discussion on changing or extending the (G)MPLS protocols. This draft includes a detailed problem description that (G)MPLS is called on to solve. The problem statement draft may also include the requirements (see requirements statement Internet-Draft, below). o Requirements statement Internet-Draft This Internet-Draft provides a detailed list of the requirements that the (G)MPLS extensions or changes need to fulfil. This draft may be merged with the problem statement draft (see above). o Solutions Internet-Draft A specification of extensions or changes to the (G)MPLS protocols Andersson and Farrel [Page 8] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 to meet the requirements in the requirement statement Internet-Draft. 3. Summary of Procedures This non-normative section is intended to provide a high-level view of the procedures in this document to illustrate how they work and to introduce the mechanisms that are defined in detail in Section 4. Whenever there is reason to believe that a particular problem may be solved by use of or extensions to the (G)MPLS protocols, a preliminary investigation phase may be used to discuss the requirements with the IETF. This may lead to an understanding that the problem is already solved, is outside the scope of the IETF, or requires more investigation possibly leading to changes to the (G)MPLS protocols. Whenever any extension or change to the (G)MPLS protocols is desired, a requirements statement must be produced and must be submitted to IETF as an Internet-Draft. As described in [RFC4052], when the requirements come from an external organization informal communications such as e-mail to working group mailing lists often facilitates cooperative work. However, if desired, the Internet-Draft containing the requirement may be submitted to the working group using a liaison statement. That way, the IETF's response to the request will be given as the reply to the liaison, with no risk of confusing an individual participant's opinion for that of the group as can happen on mailing lists. The IETF, through the Routing Area Directors and the chairs of the MPLS and CCAMP working groups, will direct the requirements draft to an appropriate working group for assessment and comment. This process may require communication and discussion for clarification, but the IETF undertakes to perform the assessment in a timely manner. In assessing the requirements statement I-D, the IETF may determine: that the requirements can be satisfied without modifications to the (G)MPLS protocols; that the requirements are not sufficiently general to warrant a change to the (G)MPLS protocols; that the requirements justify a change to the (G)MPLS protocols that will be created by the IETF or within another organization; that the requirements might not be possible to satisfy without vioalting the (G)MPLS architecture in a way that would harm the (G)MPLS technology; or that the requirements should be combined with other requirements to solve a more general problem or solve the same problem in a more flexible way. In the event that the IETF agrees to develop a solution, the IETF will commit to do so in a timely manner. If the IETF rejects the requirements, this will only be done with clear explanation and full Andersson and Farrel [Page 9] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 discussion with the source of the requirements. The solutions that are developed within the IETF may be sourced from external organizations and presented for review, discussion, modification, and adoption as Internet-Drafts. Such solutions drafts may be presented to the IETF in advance of the completion of the requirements work, but all solutions will compete through the normal IETF process with other proposed solutions, and none will be adopted as an IETF working group draft until the requirements are agreed by the rewg chairs to be stable and, in any case, not before the pswg has a charter item to cover the solutions work. 4. MPLS and GMPLS Change Process This section defines the (G)MPLS change process and the rules that must be followed in order to make extensions or changes to the (G)MPLS protocols. The language of [RFC2119] is used in order to clarify the precise required behavior. Anyone who intends to use one of the existing (G)MPLS protocols, but thinks that it will not satisfy their needs MUST use the procedures described in this document. Changes or extensions to the (G)MPLS protocols MUST NOT be made by any other mechanism. The IETF MUST NOT endorse any publications (including RFCs whether on the Standards Track, Informational, or Experimental) that change or extended the (G)MPLS protocols except for those that arise through the correct execution of the procedures in this document. The IETF MUST NOT endorse any IANA action that allocates (G)MPLS protocol codepoints except as a result of actions arising from the correct execution of the procedures in this document. Andersson and Farrel [Page 10] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 4.1 Flow Diagram Figure 1 is presented to give a visual overview of the process. It does not contain all of the possible interactions of procedures, and the text in the subsequent sections should be used for a definitive description of the process. Start +-------------+ | |optional | +--<--------------------|preliminary |<-------Start | |investigation| V +-------------+ +------------+ +---------+ +---------+ |requirements| discussion |review by| ACK | IESG/ | ACK |statement |----------->|WG chairs|------------->| IAB |------+ |I-D | on mailing |and ADs | request to |decision | | +------------+ list +---------+ IESG/IAB to +---------+ | | appoint rewg | | | NAK and charter |NAK rewg| V req eval | chartered| +-------------+ | to work on| |response | | requirements| |to the | | statement| |requirements |<-----------------+ | +->|statement |<----------------+ | | +-------------+ | | | ^ | | NAK| | NAK | | | +-----------------+ | V | | | NAK +------+ +--------+ +-------+ +--------| rewg | | IESG/ | ACK | AD | | req | +-----------| IAB |<---------------|review |<------------| eval | |WG |decision| request to | | ACK | | |chartered +--------+ IESG/IAB to +-------+ +------+ |to work approve I-D | and charter | | +---------+ | | IETF | +-----+ +--------->| WG |-----/ /---->| RFC | +---->| process | +-----+ | +---------+ solutions I-D Figure 1: Change Process Overview Andersson and Farrel [Page 11] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 4.2 Description of Process Stages This section describes how the (G)MPLS change process works, what is expected from individuals or organizations that want to extend or change the (G)MPLS protocols, and the responsibilities of the (G)MPLS working groups, the Routing Area and the IETF in general. 4.2.1 Preliminary Investigation This step is OPTIONAL, and is intended to provide a lightweight way to "feel out" the IETF's position on a proposal without going to the effort of writing an Internet-Draft. The intention is to determine whether the problem has been examined already, whether the problem is in scope for the IETF, and whether solutions are already known. Useful discussions may be held at this stage in order to ensure that the problem statement and requirements statement Internet-Drafts contain the right material. In fact, although this step is described as lightweight because no Internet-Draft is required and because the nature of the step is discursive, it may be the case that this step involves considerable technical discussions and may, in fact, be an extensive, substantive exchange of opinions. This step SHOULD be carried out informally on the mailing list of the rewg or on the Routing Area discussion mailing list and MAY be initiated by any individual, group of individuals, external organization, or IETF working group. When an external SDO has a liaison relationship with the IETF, it MAY carry out this step using a formal liaison. The liaison SHOULD be sent to the rewg or to the Routing Area, and the initiators of the liaison SHOULD make themselves available for discussion on the selected mailing list. If a formal liaison is used, the IETF MUST respond to pursue the discussion. At this stage, a problem statement I-D MAY be produced to help further the discussions and to clarify the issues being addressed. A possible outcome of this preliminary invsetigation is that the requirements and problem are understood, but agreed to be out of scope for the IETF. Alternatively it may be that the problem can be solved with existing protocols. 4.2.2 Requirements Statement Evaluation Before the IETF can formally pronounce on requirements to change or extend the (G)MPLS protocols, a requirements statement I-D MUST be written and submitted to the IETF for publication. The requirements statement I-D MUST be introduced to the IETF through Andersson and Farrel [Page 12] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 an email to the rewg mailing list or to the Routing Area discussion mailing list, or by a formal liaison from an external SDO which will result in the IETF introducing the requirements statement I-D to the rewg mailing list. If the requirements statement I-D is brought to the IETF through a formal liaison, the initiators of the liaison SHOULD make themselves available for discussion on the appropriate mailing lists. After discussion on the IETF mailing lists, the appropriate IETF working group chairs and the Routing Area Directors MUST decide whether the requirements will be formally evaluated by the IETF or MUST deliver a response to the requirements statement I-D. If the requirements statement I-D is brought to the IETF through a formal liaison, the IETF MUST respond using one of the following answers in a formal liaison reply: a. Requirements not understood. Further discussion required. b. Requirements understood, but judged to be out of scope for the IETF. In this case, the originator of the requirements can work on on requirements and solutions and will not be impeded by the IETF. The IETF may request to be kept informed of progress. c. Requirements understood, but no protocol extensions are needed. It may be desirable for the external SDO to cooperate with the appropriate working group in the production of an Applicability Statement Internet-Draft. d. Requirements understood, and the IETF would like to develop protocol extensions. This results in execution of the rest of the procedure, described below. The requirements raised in the requirements statement I-D may be combined with other requirements to produce more general extensions or changes to the (G)MPLS protocols. 4.2.3 Chartering the Rewg In many cases the problem covered by the requirements statement I-D will fall within the scope of the existing charter of a working group. In this case, the Routing Area Directors SHOULD designate the working group as the rewg and pass the requirements statement I-D to the working group for evaluation. If a new charter item is required, the Routing Area Directors with assistance from working group chairs MUST apply to the IESG and IAB Andersson and Farrel [Page 13] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 for a modification of an existing working group's charter or for the creation of a new working group. If the IESG and IAB approve the charter, the requirements statement I-D is passed to the rewg for evaluation. If the charter change is not approved, the IESG and IAB MUST respond to the requirements statement I-D and, if the requirements were introduced through a formal liaison from another SDO, the IESG and IAB MUST send a liaison response using the options described in Section 5. 4.2.4 Rewg Evaluation of the Requirements Statement I-D The objective of the rewg evaluation process is to determine a clear and complete statement of the requirements for changes or extensions to the (G)MPLS protocols. This will necessitate normal IETF working group procedures in the rewg and MAY include the generation of revisions of the requirements statement I-D in cooperation between the members of the rewg and the original authors of the requirements statement I-D. The originators of the requirements statement I-D MUST make themselves available to discuss the work on the rewg mailing list. If this does not happen, the chairs of the rewg MAY determine that there is insufficient support for the work and MAY reject the requirements statement I-D. The output of the rewg MUST be either: - a completed requirements statement I-D that has been accepted by working group consensus within the rewg and has passed through working group last call; or: - a rejection of the requirements following exactly the same format and procedure as described in Section 5. 4.2.5 AD Evaluation of Completed Requirements Statement I-D As with all Internet-Drafts produced by a working group, the ADs are MUST review the completed requirements statement I-D produced by the rewg to determine its fitness for publication. The ADs MAY use an Area Directorate to assist them in this review. The result of the AD review MAY request the rewg to do further work on the I-D in which case the previous step and this one will be repeated. The ADs SHOULD NOT reject the requirements statement I-D outright at this stage since the requirements have already been accepted by the ADs at an earlier stage. However, in some situations (such as a significant change in related circumstances) the ADs MAY reject the requirements statement I-D using the format and procedure described in Section 5. Andersson and Farrel [Page 14] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 When the ADs accept the requirements statement I-D they MUST pass it to the IESG for review, and propose any charter changes necessary to select a pswg. 4.2.6 IESG and IAB review of Requirements Statement I-D and Pswg Charter As with all Internet-Drafts, the IESG MUST take a ballot on the progression of the requirements statement I-D. If the IESG rejects the requirements statement I-D, it MUST generate a response to the requirements as described in Section 5. The IESG and IAB MUST take a ballot on any proposed charter changes for the pswg. This MAY include the formation of a new working group specifically to work on the solutions, although it is also possible that the solutions work is covered by an existing working group charter without any changes. If the IESG rejects working group charter changes such that it is not possible for the IETF to work on solutions for the requirements in the requirements statement I-D, this MUST be treated as a rejection of the requirements statement I-D, and the requirements statement I-D MUST NOT be published as an RFC. In this case the IESG MUST reject the requirements statement I-D using the format and procedure described in Section 5. 4.2.7 Solutions Work Once the requirements statement I-D has been approved by the IESG it will enter the RFC Editor's queue and be handled according to normal IETF process. Once the pswg has been identified and (re-)chartered as necessary and the requirements statement I-D has been approved by the IESG, the pswg can start work on solutions following the normal IETF process. Solutions I-Ds MAY be prepared externally (such as within an external organization) or within the IETF, submitted to the IETF for publication, and introduced to the pswg for consideration. Such I-Ds MAY be submitted at earlier stages in the process to assist the rewg in its development and discussion of the requirements, but no I-D will be formally considered as a solutions I-Ds until the pswg has a charter item that covers the work and the rewg chairs are confident that the requirements are stable. Even at this stage in the process, the IETF makes no guarantees that an externally produced solutions I-D will form the basis of the pswg solutions I-D, but the pswg MUST consider such an I-D as a possible solution I-D. The final development of the solutions I-D is subject to the normal working group review, consensus, and last call within the pswg. Andersson and Farrel [Page 15] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 Where the requirements originated from an external organization, the pswg SHOULD regularly communicate its progress using a formal liaison process if one exists. This communication SHOULD also be used to request review input and comment on the development of the solutions I-D. When the solutions I-D is complete (normally upon completing working group last call and/or on entering the RFC Editor's queue) the pswg MUST inform the originating organization of the completed solution. 5. Rejecting Requirements Statements I-D Rejection of the requirements statements is a sensitive matter for the authors of the requirements and MUST be handled with full disclosure and explanation by the IETF. The requirements can be rejected at various stages of the process as described in the previous sections. The person or grouping that makes the rejection is responsible for generating an explanation of the rejection and MUST follow the process described in this section. 5.1 Reasons for Rejection The requirements statement I-D can only be rejected using one of the following reasons. Each reason MUST be stated with the acceptable next steps as described here. - Requirements not understood. At the early stage of evaluation of the requirements statement I-D before the rewg has been tasked with performing a full evaluation and completing the requirements statement I-D or during the optional preliminary investigation it is not clear what the requirements are for or what the problem being addressed is. This rejection forms part of an on-going communication and it is expected that the process will continue with further iterations. - Out of scope for the IETF. Many stages of this process may determine that the requirements are out of scope for the IETF. In this case, the IETF MUST NOT constrain the authors of the requirements statement I-D permission to work on a solution. - No protocols extensions or changes are needed. At some stage in the evaluation of the requirements it may become clear that they can all be met through appropriate use of existing protocols. In this case no further evaluation of the requirements is required, but the IETF MUST explain how the protocols can be used to meet the requirements and MAY cooperate with the authors of the requirements statement I-D in the production of an Applicability Statement Internet-Draft that explains precisely how the existing protocols can be used to meet the requirements. Andersson and Farrel [Page 16] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 - Insufficient support within the IETF. Although the work described within the requirements statement I-D is within scope for the IETF, and despite the support of the originators of the requirements statement I-D on the rewg mailing list, the chairs of the rewg have determined that there is insufficient support in the rewg to complete requirements statement I-D. In this case, the IETF MUST grant the authors of the requirements statement I-D permission to work on a solution. The solution SHALL be presented to the IETF for review and possible publication as an Informational or Experimental RFC, and the IETF SHALL NOT block applications to IANA for codepoints. - Insufficient support for the work. If the authors of the requirements statement I-D do not make themselves available on the rewg mailing list for discussion of the requirements or do not contribute the completion of the requirements statement I-D, the chairs of the rewg MAY determine that there is insufficient support for the work and MAY reject the requirements statement I-D. In this case, the IETF MUST NOT grant permission for the work to be carried out in any other organization, and MUST NOT endorse the publication of any changes or extensions to the (G)MPLS protocols and MUST NOT instruct IANA to allocate any codepoints. The requirements may be re-introduced by starting the procedure again from the top. - Satisfying the requirements would break the technology. It is possible that an assessment will be made that, although the requirements are reasonable, it is not possible to satisfy them through extensions or changes to the (G)MPLS protocols without violating the (G)MPLS architecture in such a way as would break the (G)MPLS technology. In this case a recommendation will be made that some other technology be used to satisfy the requirements. See Section 7 for further discussions of the protection of the integrity of the (G)MPLS technology. 5.2 Actions Upon Rejection Upon rejection, the IETF MUST make a clear statement of why the requirements statement I-D has been rejected and what next step actions are acceptable. The reasons SHOULD be based on the list in Section 5.1. The form of the rejection depends on the form of the original submission. - If the requirements are brought to the IETF as a preliminary investigation (see Section 4.2.1) through an email exchange then the response SHOULD be made as an email response and SHOULD be archived through an IETF email archive. - If the requirements are brought to the IETF as a preliminary Andersson and Farrel [Page 17] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 investigation (see Section 4.2.1) through a formal liaison, the rejection MUST be delivered through a formal liaison response. - If a requirements statement I-D has been produced and discussed on an IETF email list, the response SHOULD be made as an email response and copied to the email list. - If a requirements statement I-D has been produced and brought to the IETF through a formal liaison, the rejection MUST be delivered through a formal liaison response. - If an IETF working group has been involved in the review or production of any Internet-Drafts for the requirements or for the solutions, the working group MUST be notified of the rejection and the reasons. The responsibility for the generation response lies with the person, people, or grouping that instigates the rejection. This may be the IAB, the IESG, one or more Area Directors, one or more working group chairs, or a protocol caretaker. In the case of the use of a liaison relationship, the IETF's liaison manager has responsibility for ensuring that the procedures in this document, and particularly the rejection procedures, are followed. 6. Abandonment of the Solutions I-D Once the solutions work has been started by the pswg, it MAY be abandoned before completion. This can happen if the pswg chairs determine that there is no longer working group support for doing the work. This could arise, for example, if no-one (including the originators of the requirements statement I-D) is willing to contribute to the development of a solutions I-D. In the event that the solutions work is abandoned by the pswg, the Area Directors responsible for the pswg MUST be consulted. The originators of the requirements statement I-D MUST be informed that the work has been stopped using a mechanism dependent on how the requirements were introduced (as discussed in Section 5.2). If the solution is abandoned in this way, work on solutions for the requirements MUST NOT be started in another forum. The status of extensions and changes to the (G)MPLS protocols with regard to the specific requirements returns to how it was before the process started. Any new examination of the requirements MUST commence at the top of the process. Andersson and Farrel [Page 18] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 7. (G)MPLS Integrity The (G)MPLS working groups are REQUIRED to protect the architectural integrity of the (G)MPLS protocols and MUST NOT extend the GMPLS architecture with features that do not have general use beyond the specific case. They also MUST NOT modify the architecture just to make some function more efficient at the expense of simplicity or generality. The architectural implications of additions or changes to the (G)MPLS protocols MUST be consider interoperability with existing and future versions of the protocols. The effects of adding features that overlap or that deal with a point solution and are not general are much harder to control with rules. Therefore the (G)MPLS technology calls for this architectural guardianship by its working groups. 8. Security Considerations All requirements statement I-Ds MUST give full consideration to the security impact of the proposed additional features or functions. All solutions I-Ds MUST consider the impact on the security of the protocol extensions and to the pre-existing protocol. This documents does not itself introduce any security issues for any (G)MPLS protocols. The IETF process is itself at risk from denial of service attacks. This document utilizes the IETF process and adds details to that process. It is possible, therefore, that this document might put the IETF process at risk. Although this document places additional requirements on key individuals within the IETF, those requirements are not substantial for any individual requirements statement I-D since the responsibility for the majority of the work lies with the rewg and pswg with an underlying assumption that the authors of the requirements statement I-D will participate in the working group process. Therefore, provided that the number of requirements statement I-Ds is not unreasonable, there will be no significant impact on the IETF process. The rate of arrival of requirements statement I-Ds MAY be used by the IESG to detect denial of service attacks, and the IESG SHOULD act on such an event depending on the source of the requirements statement I-D and the perceived relevance of the work. The IESG might, for example, discuss the issue with the management of external organizations. Andersson and Farrel [Page 19] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 9. Acknowledgements The input given by Bert Wijnen has been useful and detailed. Review feedback and discussions with various members of the ITU-T has been helpful in refining the process described in this document. Thanks in particular to the members of Question 14 of Study Group 15, and to the management of Study Group 15. Important discussions were held with the following participants in the ITU-T: Yoichi Maeda, Greg Jones, Stephen Trowbridge, Malcolm Betts, Kam Lam, George Newsome, Eve Varma, Lyndon Ong, Stephen Shew, Jonathan Sadler, and Ben Mack-Crane. 10. IANA Considerations This document makes no specific requests to IANA for action. The procedures described in this document assume that IANA will adhere to the allocation policies defined for the (G)MPLS codepoint registries and that the IETF will not endorse allocation of codepoints from those registries except where work has been carried out in accordance with the procedures described in this document. 11. References 11.1 Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4052] Daigle, L., "IAB Processes for Management of IETF Liaison Relationships", BCP 102, RFC 4052, April 2005. [RFC4053] Trowbridge, S., Bradner, S., and F. Baker, "Procedures for Handling Liaison Statements to and from the IETF", BCP 103, RFC4053, April 2005. [PROT-EXT] Bradner, S., and Carpenter, B., "Procedures for protocol extensions and variations", draft-carpenter-protocol- extensions, work in progress. 11.2 Informative References [RFC3356] Fishman, G. and S. Bradner, "Internet Engineering Task Force and International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunications Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines", RFC 3356, August 2002. [RFC3932] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004. Andersson and Farrel [Page 20] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 Authors' Addresses Loa Andersson Acreo AB Email: loa@pi.se Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk George Swallow Cisco Systems Email: swallow@cisco.com Deborah Brungard AT&T Email: dbrungard@att.com Bill Fenner AT&T Email: fenner@research.att.com Ross Callon Juniper Networks Email: rcallon@juniper.net Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks Email: Kireeti@juniper.net Alex Zinin Alcatel Email: zinin@psg.com Scott Bradner Harvard University Email: sob@harvard.edu Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Andersson and Farrel [Page 21] Internet-Draft MPLS and GMPLS Change Process October 2006 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Andersson and Farrel [Page 22]