Subject: [Pce] Publication Request for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-05.txt

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:33:06 -0400

Hi Ross,

Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-05.txt

Intended status : Standards Track

> (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
>        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

JP Vasseur is the document shepherd and has reviewed the document. He thinks
that the document is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
>        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>        have been performed?

The document has been discussed and reviewed by several key WG members, with
no review of non WG members that has been considered necessary.

> (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>        AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

> (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
>        and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
>        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
>        has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
>        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
>        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>        concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>        been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
>        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>        this issue.

No specific concern about this document. The solution specified in this
document has a good support in the WG, and satisfies a well specified
requirement for the PCEP protocol (RFC4657).

There was no filed IPR disclosure related to this document.

> (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
>        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
>        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
>        agree with it?

Good consensus. No concern or additional comments received during WG Last
Call.

> (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
>        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
>        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
>        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats. No discontent.

> (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
>        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
>        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
>        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
>        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The Document has been checked.

> (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
>        informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
>        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
>        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
>        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
>        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
>        so, list these downward references to support the Area
>        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References split.
No downrefs. The normative reference is indented to follow a Standard Track:

[PCE-PATH-KEY] R. Bradford, JP Vasseur, and A. Farrel, "Preserving
             Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
             using a key based mechanism", draft-ietf-pce-path-key
             (work in progress).

> (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
>        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
>        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
>        reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
>        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document specifies PCEP protocol extensions and a IANA section exists
that makes use of the same language as the PCEP specification.

Note that to help ensure consistent allocation of protocol codepoints, a
temporary (non-definitive) registry is maintained at
www.olddog.co.uk/pcep-codepoints.txt
<http://www.olddog.co.uk/pcep-codepoints.txt>

> (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>        an automated checker?

No such formal language is used.

> (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
>        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
>        Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
>        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
>        announcement contains the following sections:
>
>        Technical Summary
>           Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>           and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
>           an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>           or introduction.

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity
   that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
   network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path
   Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
   computed.

   When a PCC requests a PCE for a route, it may be useful for the PCC
   to specify abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups
   (SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the route.

   For example, disjoint paths for inter-domain LSPs may be computed by
   cooperation between PCEs, each of which computes segments of the
   paths across one domain. In order to achieve path computation for a
   secondary (backup) path, a PCE may act as a PCC to request another

   PCE for a route that must be node/link/SRLG disjoint from the
   primary (working) path. Another example is where a network operator
   wants a path to avoid specified nodes for administrative reasons,
   perhaps because the specified nodes will be out-of-services in the
   near future.

   [RFC4657] specifies generic requirements for a communication
   protocol between PCCs and PCEs. Generic constraints described in
   [RFC4657] include route exclusions for links, nodes, and SRLGs. That
   is, the requirement for support of route exclusions within the PCC-
   PCE communication protocol is already established.

   The PCE communication protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
   protocol between PCCs and PCEs and is defined in [PCEP]. This
   document presents PCEP extensions to satisfy the requirements for
   route exclusions as described in Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.16 of
   [RFC4657].

   Note that MPLS-TE and GMPLS signaling extensions for communicating
   route exclusions between network nodes for specific Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) are described in [RFC4874]. Route exclusions may be
   specified during provisioning requests for specific LSPs by setting
   the mplsTunnelHopInclude object of MPLS-TE-STD-MIB defined in
   [RFC3812] to false (2).

>        Working Group Summary
>           Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
>           example, was there controversy about particular points or
>           were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>           rough?

The PCE WG has good consensus with no disagreement.

>        Document Quality
>           Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
>           significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>           implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
>           merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>           e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>           conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
>           there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>           what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
>           review, on what date was the request posted?

There is one known implementation of this document with several other
unknown implementations. An interoperability event (ISOCRE) with multiple
implementations is planned.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce