Subject: [Pce] Please publish draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-04.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:18:56 -0000

Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-04.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?

Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding 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?

I-D had a relatively low level of discussions and review in the PCE
working group. However, the work makes only a small modification to
the base PCE protocol (PCEP) and is only of interest to people
building large PCE-based systems. It has been authored by individuals
associated with three separate PCEP implementations.

It has not had review in any wider forums, but none was deemed
necessary or appropriate.

> (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.

The document is sound.

No IPR discolsed

> (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?

As per document review, the consensus represents the strong concurrence
of a few individuals, with others being silent. There has been no
dissent at all.

> (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?

All checks made.

> (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.

> (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 defines small protocol enhancements to PCEP. The PCEP
specification is progressing through the RFC Editor process and no
the IANA registry that has been created is not quite definitive yet.
Nevertheless, this I-D requests further allocations from the PCEP
registry that IANA will create and manage.

The IANA section of this I-D uses the same language as the PCEP
specification and, in particular, uses the same sub-registry names.

> (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?

A small amount of BNF is used.
A normative reference to draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf is included to
scope the form of BNF in use.
No automated checker has been 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.

A Path Computation Element (PCE) based architecture has been
specified in RFC 4655 for the computation of Traffic Engineering
(TE) Label Switched Paths in MPLS and GMPLS networks. This
architecture can be used in the context of single or multiple
domains (where a domain refers to a collection of network
elements within a common sphere of address management or path
computational responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous
Systems).

Path Computation Clients send computation requests to PCEs using
the Path Computation Protocol (PCEP). These PCEs may forward the
requests to, and cooperate with, other PCEs forming a "path
computation chain". In PCE-based environments, it is critical to
monitor the state of the path computation chain for
troubleshooting and performance monitoring purposes: liveness of
each element (PCE) involved in the PCE chain, detection of
potential computational resource contention states and statistics
in terms of path computation times are examples of such metrics
of interest.

This document specifies procedures and extensions to PCEP in
order to gather such information.

>        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?

Nothing of note.
Not a very loud consensus, but no dissent.

>        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 are no known implementations of this minor addition to the 
protocol. There are long-term plans to implement, but nothing in the 
immediate future.

Althought the specification got ahead of the implementation, it is felt
that it would be useful to complete the publication process and move on.