From manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Jan 10 17:20:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348AD3A6893 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:20:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.458 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lvXJdUu8nEqm for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580203A6892 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p0B1MlIb029637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:22:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub02.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.35]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p0B1MjF8009050 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:52:47 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.56]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:52:46 +0530 From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:52:43 +0530 Subject: BFD Generic Cryptographic Authentication Thread-Topic: BFD Generic Cryptographic Authentication Thread-Index: AcuxLguutPPgkRjfTlK+NYdp3+yvwQ== Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFB03C2A3@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.250.11.33 X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:20:38 -0000 Hi, This draft was last presented in Maastricht where I believe there was a con= sensus on accepting this as a WG item as part of BFD's recharter. OSPF (rfc= 5709) and IS-IS (rfc 5310) are already supporting these enhanced crypto al= gorithms and we must add support for these in BFD as well, since BFD is use= d to determine the liveliness of these protocols. In addition to this it al= so provides key agility which is definitely required. Link to the updated draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bhatia-bfd-crypto-auth-03.txt Cheers, Manav -- Manav Bhatia, IP Division, Alcatel-Lucent, Bangalore - India = From Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com Wed Jan 19 06:01:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9E93A6F30; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:01:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odtP5p87BPYr; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from usaga03-in.huawei.com (usaga03-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B843A712B; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (usaga03-in [172.18.4.17]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LF900547WFBZN@usaga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:04:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LF900JX1WF9G9@usaga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:04:23 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:04:20 +0000 From: Adrian Farrel Subject: Proposed liaison response on ITU-T Optical transport Network Work Plan To: mpls@ietf.org, 'CCAMP' , pce@ietf.org Message-id: <070501cbb7e1$c6436020$52ca2060$@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-gb Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Acu34bm7+lB0frMlTquX736g5RjMjQ== Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, itu-t-liaisons@iab.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:01:45 -0000 Hi, We received a liaison "SG15 OTNT standardization work plan" which you can see at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1054.pdf The document they would like us to review is "Draft Revised Optical Transport Networks & Technologies Standardization Work Plan, Issue 13" visible at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1055.pdf The liaison is addressed CCAMP, PCE, and MPLS, but it falls to me as liaison on the Optical Control Plane to respond. I am copying this email to BFD, OPSAWG, PWE3, and L2VPN as those WGs are explicitly mentioned in the document. A response is requested by February 1, 2011. Here is a draft of what I plan to send. Please send me any comments by January 28. Thanks, Adrian === The IETF thanks you for your liaison COM15-LS204-E received on 2010-06-24 titled "SG15 OTNT standardization work plan", and thanks you for sharing your plans. We have reviewed the document and have a number of comments. In general, it is becoming less and less clear that the title of this document is accurate! SG15 now embraces a number of non-optical transport technologies including Ethernet and MPLS-TP. Although those packet-based technologies can be transmitted over optical links, they are not limited to that medium. Maybe your document should be titled "Transport Networks & Technologies Standardization Work Plan" or maybe you should remove the non-optical material. The scope text in Section 5 and 5.1 might also need revision. The IETF has not position of this, but simply draws the matter to your attention. Table 5-1 We would like to suggest the inclusion of the MPLS Working Group in this table as that working group is responsible for many elements of the support of Ethernet "carrier-class" pseudowires over MPLS and MPLS-TP networks. Section 5.6.1 begins: "MPLS OAM was originally standardized by ITU-T SG13 (Q.5/13)." Although the section goes on to list IETF standardization of MPLS OAM, it may be considered that this first sentence implies that the ITU-T developed MPLS OAM before any MPLS OAM had been developed within the IETF. This would, of course, be a misrepresentation. Therefore, we suggest that you change this first sentence to read: "Within the ITU-T, MPLS OAM was originally standardized by SG13 (Q.5/13)." Table 5-3 Architectural Aspects of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5921, RFC 5950, RFC 5960 Equipment Functional Characteristics of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5960 OAM and Protection Switching of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5860 Management Aspects of MPLS Add RFC 4221 Management Aspects of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5950, RFC 5951 Performance of ATM Add RFC 3116 Performance of MPLS Add RFC 5695 Table 7-1-2 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework is now RFC 5921 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req is now RFC 5951 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk reached revision -06 and has been approved for publication as an RFC draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework reached revision -10 and has been approved for publication as an RFC draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework is now RFC 5950 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone has reached revision -03 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane is now RFC 5960 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers has reached revision -03 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv is now abandoned draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework has reached revision -05 Further relevant Internet-Drafts and RFCs can be found at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mpls http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pwe3 http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pce Table 7-4-2 draft-ietf-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf is now RFC 5787 Table 7-8 should inherit changes to Table 7-1-2 and be updated according to the document status available at the IETF working group pages as listed above. Table 8-1 entry 3. Please be aware of the work on impairment-aware routing in the CCAMP and PCE working groups. (It may be your intention that this is covered under entry 5.) Annex A might usefully refer readers to RFC 4397 and draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone that provide terminology mapping and have been jointly developed by IETF and ITU-T experts. We would welcome it if you shared any future revisions of this work plan with us. Adrian Farrel IETF Liaison to the IETF on the Optical Control Plane Routing Area Director