Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd
Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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. This is appropriate because the draft specifies protocol
extensions. The title page identifies the draft as Standards Track.
(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:
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.
[RFC8402] specify the Segment Routing (SR) architecture that enables
any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop
signaling technique. [RFC8402] also identified PCEP a possible mechanism
for a central controller to instruct the network. This documents specify
the PCEP extention to support Segment Routing.
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?
No controversies. A 2nd WG LC was issued after the draft had a substantial
change after the 1st call. The shepherd review also led to simplification
of text. The authors handled all comments raised. The consensus behind the
document is good.
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 several PCEP implementations supporting Segment Routing. This
includes commercial as well as open source implementations. There
was also a discussion related to backward compatibility as related to
some implementations before RFC8408 was published.
Substantial review was done by Adrian Farrel and Dhruv Dhody.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Dhruv Dhody 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.
In my opinion, the document is ready. The shepherd review provided
comments and suggestion to the authors which were handled during the latest
update.
(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.
The usual Routing Directorate's review is expected.
(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.
The text related to handling of SID list is independent of the protocol.
During shephered review, these details were removed for the PCE WG document
and instead referenced from the SPRING WG I-Ds.
(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 IPR disclosures for this document.
(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?
The document triggered various discussions and it has been carefully
reviewed by a few interested individuals. Overall it can be considered as a
consensus of the WG as a whole.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
None.
(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? 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).
The IANA section is clear. It mixes existing early allocation, new request
and import from another I-D in an precise manner.
(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.
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.