Skip to main content

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]