(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. This is proper as the document is an applicability statement.
Yes, it is in the title page header.
(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:
This document discusses the applicability of the PCE architecture to
various inter-domain use cases.
Working Group Summary:
The document's progress through the working group was smooth.
Document Quality:
The document is an applicability statement; there are several
implementations of the PCE features that it discusses.
Personnel:
Jon Hardwick is the document shepherd.
Deborah Brungard is the responsible AD.
(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 the document twice. Once in 2017, and once again recently.
My first review found a large number of issues with clarity and document
structure. These had all been addressed to my satisfaction by the time of
my second review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
Apart from myself, I do not remember seeing any other reviews of this
document on the PCE mailing list, although as the document has been around
for a very long time, there may have been reviews in its early days that I
did not see. Despite this, whenever the PCE working group was asked, the
WG found this document to cover an important subject and supported its
publication as RFC.
(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 applicable.
(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.
I am comfortable with this document.
(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.
No.
(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?
Although the WGLC for this document provoked few replies, there was nobody
who disagreed with its publication.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
There are a couple of nits due to the fact that the document was last
updated in 2018. These should disappear next time the document is
refreshed.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
(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?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
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).
The document makes no request of IANA.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations.
Not applicable.
(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.
Not applicable.