Subject: [Pce] Progressing draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-06

From: Jonathan Hardwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:53:15 +0000

I have submitted this draft to the IESG for publication.  A copy of my shepherd write-up is below FYI.
Best regards
Jon

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Informational - indicated in the title page header.
  This is the correct type as the draft is an applicability statement.

(2) 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

  A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information about
  Label Switched Path (LSP) characteristics and resource usage within a
  network in order to provide traffic engineering calculations for its
  associated Path Computation Clients (PCCs).  This document describes
  general considerations for a stateful PCE deployment and examines its
  applicability and benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations.

Working Group Summary

  This document contains text that was originally included in the base
  stateful PCE protocol specification.  The WG decided to split the
  text into a separate applicability statement to allow additional
  use cases to be contributed and the whole document edited in parallel.
  Use cases were contributed by several WG members for a variety of MPLS
  and GMPLS applications.  There has been no particular controversy and
  the consensus behind the document is good.

Document Quality

  The text has been worked on over a long period and has been scrutinized
  by several reviewers.  There are several stateful PCE implementations
  covering the full range of scenarios presented by this applicability
  statement.

Personnel

  Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd.  Deborah Brungard is the
  Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  I reviewed this text carefully twice, once when it was under initial
  development as part of the stateful PCE protocol specification, and
  again when preparing to submit the document for IESG review.  In my
  opinion the document is ready to be published.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  N/A.

(9) 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 across the WG.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  Just a couple of outdated references to other drafts.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  This document does not specify any actions for IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  N/A.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  N/A.