Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
RFC 7150
Document | Type |
RFC
- Proposed Standard
(March 2014)
Obsoleted by RFC 7470
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Fatai Zhang , Adrian Farrel | ||
Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
IESG | Responsible AD | Stewart Bryant | |
Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 7150
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Quite broad agreement, of those who participated. It was decided to make it experimental as it is a significant change to IMAP semantics. There are industry players who have already implemented an initial pass at this, and we're keen to publish it so they can interoperate, while remaining as an experimental extension. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The main areas of discussion were around interaction with all the other IMAP extensions and whether they had been sufficiently thought through, but there was no real controversy. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are implementations at Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft - and at least some pre-release experimentation has been done by Apple. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No, there's no other reviews that would be relevant. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no formal reviews required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. The ABNF was validated for syntax correctness using the ABNF validator on author-tools. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes, this document is clear and sufficient for an experimental standard. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No common issue review is required here. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Experimental is right here because of the significant change to the IMAP model being proposed. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [#x27; Addresses Adrian Farrel Juniper Networks EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk Fatai Zhang Huawei Technologies EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 12]