(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?
Proposed Standard. The front page indicates that the document is on the standards track. This is an appropriate type of RFC as this document updates RFC 5440, which is itself a standards track RFC.
(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.
This document updates RFC 5440 (Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)) with some additional rules about the semantics and format of the Include Route Object (IRO). Specifically:
- The IRO is now to be regarded as an ordered list (previously this was left to the interpretation of the implementation).
- The IRO subobjects gain an extra bit to indicate whether they are strict or loose hops.
Working Group Summary:
A survey was done of the PCE working group to determine how current implementations interpret the IRO. There were 9 respondents to the survey, which represents a good cross-section of PCEP implementers. The survey results were published in [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey]. The results were not unanimous, but it was clear that the majority of implementations would either be unaffected, or not significantly affected, by the change in semantics and format that are proposed in this draft.
At the time of the survey, there were already 5 implementations that conformed to the updates specified by this draft. Several other implementers have indicated that they plan to update their implementations to be in line with this draft. There have been no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done.
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 have reviewed this document twice and have no outstanding comments.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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 broader review is required.
(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.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR has been disclosed.
(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?
Only one (very supportive) review was received during working group last call. There were nine responses to the survey, but the majority of these respondents have not commented on the proposed protocol update.
(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.)
(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.
The idnits tool reports one warning to do with a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work. The draft author is currently trying to contact the original authors of RFC 5440 to find out if this disclaimer can be removed.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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?
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
(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.
This document updates RFC 5440. This is stated clearly on the title page and in the document abstract.
(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).
(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.
This document does not request the creation of any new IANA registries.
(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.