--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.txt 2016-03-10 13:22:18.731069315 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04.txt 2016-03-10 13:22:18.767070207 -0800 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ CCAMP Working Group Zafar Ali Internet Draft Antonello Bonfanti -Intended status: Standards Track Matt Hartley - Cisco Systems +Updates: 7139 Matt Hartley +Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems F. Zhang Huawei Technologies -Expires: August 2, 2016 February 2, 2016 +Expires: September 10, 2016 March 10, 2016 IANA Allocation Procedures for OTN Signal Type Subregistry of the GMPLS Signaling Parameters Registry - draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. @@ -52,97 +52,102 @@ controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Abstract IANA has defined an "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling -Parameters" registry. This draft updates the OTN Signal Type -subregistry to allow Specification Required policies, as defined in -RFC 5226. - -Conventions used in this document - -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]. +Parameters" registry. This document updates the OTN Signal Type +subregistry specified in RFC 7139 to allow Specification Required +policies, as defined in RFC 5226. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 - 2. IANA Considerations............................................2 - 3. Acknowledgments................................................3 - 4. References.....................................................3 - 4.1. Normative References.......................................3 + 2. Security Considerations........................................2 + 3. IANA Considerations............................................2 + 4. Acknowledgments................................................3 + 5. References.....................................................3 + 5.1. Normative References.......................................3 + 5.2. Informative References.....................................3 1. Introduction IANA maintains "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry for the OTN signal defined in [RFC4328] and updated by [RFC7139]. This subregistry is defined to use only the Standards Action registration policy as defined by [RFC5226]. This document updates [RFC7139] to allow the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to also support Specification Required policies, as defined in [RFC5226]. -2. IANA Considerations +2. Security Considerations + + This document introduces no new security considerations to the + existing GMPLS signaling protocols. Refer to [RFC7139] for + further details of the specific security measures. + Additionally, [RFC5920] provides an overview of security + vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control + plane. + +3. IANA Considerations IANA maintains the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry. The registry currently is defined to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by [RFC5226]. This document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry be updated with the following registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC5226]. When needed, the Designated Expert shall be any current CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, designated by the IESG. -3. Acknowledgments +4. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Lou Berger, Deborah Brungard, - Daniele Ceccarelli, Adrian Farrel and Huub van Helvoort for - comments. - -4. References + Daniele Ceccarelli, Adrian Farrel, Huub van Helvoort and Robert + Sparks for comments. -4.1. Normative References +5. References - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. +5.1. Normative References [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006. [RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139, March 2014. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. -Authors' Addresses +5.2. Informative References + [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS + Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. + +Authors' Addresses Zafar Ali Cisco Systems Email: zali@cisco.com Antonello Bonfanti Cisco Systems abonfant@cisco.com Matt Hartley Cisco Systems