|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 6060 (2011)
|
|
Title:
|
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Typically transport Ethernet Equipment does not implement a control plane as each node is directly provisioned using the management plane. This Recommendations indicates that it may be beneficial to implement GMPLS specifically for PBB-TE as defined in [IETF RFC 6060].
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=6060
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This is a standards track RFC, intended status is "Proposed Standard"
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
This is a standards track RFC, with status "Proposed Standard".
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the referenced RFC are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
/
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1/
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997./
/
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP/
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001./
/
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Swicthing (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC/
3471, January 2003./
/
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-/
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003./
/
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004./
/
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End/
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007./
/
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007./
/
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC/
4974, August 2007./
/
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP/
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009./
/
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol/
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
Reference should always be made by RFC number (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References should not be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or to IETF RFCs categorized as Historic or Experimental. Normative references must only be made to IETF RFCs that are Standards Track or to Informational RFCs that have IETF consensus.
|
|
