IGP Extension for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Security Capability Support in PCE Discovery (PCED)
draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term `master`; alternatives might be `active`, `central`, `initiator`,
  `leader`, `main`, `orchestrator`, `parent`, `primary`, `server`
* Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### URLs

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

* http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr36/

### Grammar/style

#### "Abstract", paragraph 1
```
for OSPF and IS-IS respectively. However these specifications lack a method
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".
(Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 1, paragraph 5
```
ry" instead of the "IGP registry" where as [RFC8623] and [RFC9168] uses the
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "whereas"?

#### Section 3.2.2, paragraph 3
```
string to be used to identify the key chain. It MUST be encoded using UTF-8.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 5, paragraph 4
```
enable a man-in-the-middle attack. Thus before advertising the PCEP security
                                    ^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
        A receiving entity MUST NOT interpret invalid UTF-8 sequences.

What must it do then, when encountering invalid UTF-8 ?


        In any case, an implementation SHOULD [...]

So not in ANY case then? :-)

nits:
                        1                  2                  3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |              Type = 6        |            Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    KeyID      |                Reserved                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type: 6

      Length: 4


Why does it not say "Length = 4" like it says "Type = 6"  ?

(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 Proposed Standard.

Yes - Proposed Standard. This document level is required for protocol extension and interoperability for advertisment of OSPF and IS-IS PCE capabilities.

(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 provides extensions to OSPF and IS-IS to advertisement the PCE Security capabilities of the advertising router. These capabilities could than be used for PCE and PC Client authentication.

Working Group Summary:

While this document has been around for some time, there wasn't much discussion until WG last call. During the WG last call, we received comments from more than a half dozen people and these were incorporated into the document. We also got RTG and SEC directorate reviews. The WG last call included both the LSR and PCE WG lists and there were reviewers from both.


Document Quality:

The document is of high quality with all the required reviews. While there aren't any implementations yet, it is a very straight forward extension.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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.

The document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and consistency comments.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(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.

No.

(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.

None.

(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.

Yes. There were no comments on the IPR disclosure during the IPR poll. It should be noted that most LSR documents have IPR disclosures.

(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?

There is support for publication and absolutely no objactions.

(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.

All fixed in -08.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(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.

Yes - an IANA registry was moved and that impacts four RFCs listed in the updated list.

(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 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been the topic of discussion.

(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.

  The document moves the "PCE Capability Flags" registry from "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" to under the IANA Common IGP parameters registry and allocate new bits assignments for the IGP Parameters "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry.

  This document also creates  a new subregistry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.


(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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

N/A

[Ballot discuss]
This should be simple to resolve, but it has to be clarified:

The shepherd writeup says there were IPR claims made about the document.  The question also asks for a summary of the resulting discussion, but the shepherd writeup doesn't provide one.  Can we confirm that the discussion was had, or some other answer to the question can be provided?

[Ballot comment]
I started ballotting DISCUSS on this, but, surprisingly, "You made Warren sad" isn't actually one of the DISCUSS criteria, and so I'm (grudgingly and with bad grace) balloting NoObj instead.

----
6.  Management Considerations

  A configuration option may be provided for advertising and
  withdrawing PCEP security capability via OSPF and IS-IS.
----

This section seems more than pointless to me - it seems (admittedly very slightly!) harmful.
It doesn't actually *say* anything useful, but the very act of it showing up in the index / table of contents gives the impression that there may be actually Management Considerations text somewhere below.
This initially made me all excited, and set my heart a flutter -- only to be crushed when I actually read it.

Please consider ripping the section out - AFAICT, it doesn't accomplish anything, other than leading to false hope...

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11

CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Acee Lindem for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status, but we miss the WG reaction on the IPR disclosure (see below).

Please note that Suzanne Woolf is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request) and you may want to consider this int-dir reviews as well when Suzanne will complete the review (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support/reviewrequest/16328/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### IPR

The shepherd's write-up rightfully states that IPR disclosures were done (e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5027/). But, the write-up says nothing about the WG reaction on a licensing scheme that it rather ambiguous `Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee` as the "possible royalty/fee" could hinder the deployment and use of this I-D.

What was the WG reaction ?

### Section 1

The first paragraph mentions privacy, which is important but I would have assumed that integrity was even more important. Should integrity be mentioned ?

It is probably obvious, but should the change of registry names be linked to supporting IS-IS as well ?

### Section 3.2.1 (and 3.3.1)

The section would benefit of a simple figure showing the TLV structure, even if only to be consistent with section 3.2.2

### Normative references

Unsure whether RFC 5925, 5926, and others are really normative as I would qualify them as informative.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot discuss]
Hi,

Sorry for the discuss, but I find a couple of specification aspects of this draft to be unclear enough that I think that they probably warrant a discuss, hopefully easy to explain or resolve:

In section 3.2, it wasn't clear to me exactly where I find what the Key-Id is.  I suspect that this is probably referring to "KeyId" in rfc5925.  If so, I think that would be emphasizing.

In section 3.3, it wasn't clear to me what the Key chain name is, or what exactly it refers to.  Is this referring to a local key-chain name installed in a YANG Keystore (given that there is a reference to RFC8177) or something else.  Either way, I think that expanding on the description here would probably be very beneficial.

[Ballot comment]
One minor comment.  I noted that the description of the Key-Id slightly differed for the OSPF encoding vs ISIS encoding and I wanted to check that the difference was intentional.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Yaron Sheffer for the SECDIR review.

** Section 7.  In the spirit of inclusive language, s/enable a man-in-the-middle attack/enable an on-path attack/.

[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11

CC @larseggert

## Discuss

### Section 4, paragraph 3
```
    Section 4 of [RFC5088] states that no new sub-TLVs will be added to
    the PCED TLV, and no new PCE information will be carried in the
    Router Information LSA.  This document updates [RFC5088] by allowing
    the two sub-TLVs defined in this document to be carried in the PCED
    TLV advertised in the Router Information LSA.

    Section 4 of [RFC5089] states that no new sub-TLVs will be added to
    the PCED TLV, and no new PCE information will be carried in the
    Router CAPABLITY TLV.  This document updates [RFC5089] by allowing
    the two sub-TLVs defined in this document to be carried in the PCED
    TLV advertised in the Router CAPABILITY TLV.

    This introduction of additional sub-TLVs should be viewed as an
    exception to the [RFC5088][RFC5089] policy, justified by the
    requirement to discover the PCEP security support prior to
    establishing a PCEP session.  The restrictions defined in
    [RFC5089][RFC5089] should still be considered to be in place.
```
(This is mostly for discussion on the telechat, and I expect to clear
during the call.)

Why were 5088/89 so strict on not allowing new sub-TLVs? This seems
quite unusual for IETF specs. I'm not arguing that this document
can't update those earlier RFCs to allow these new sub-TLVs, but it
seems odd to do so and in the same sentence say "the restrictions
should still be considered in place."

### Section 8.2, paragraph 1
```
    The PCED sub-TLVs were defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089], but they
    did not create a registry for it.  This document requests IANA to
    create a new registry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the
    "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" grouping.  The
    registration policy for this registry is "IETF Review" [RFC8126].
    Values in this registry come from the range 0-65535.
```
Should the registration policy not be stricter (e.g., Standards
Action?) given that 5088/89 didn't even allow any new values?

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term `master`; alternatives might be `active`, `central`, `initiator`,
  `leader`, `main`, `orchestrator`, `parent`, `primary`, `server`
* Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### URLs

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

* http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr36/

### Grammar/style

#### "Abstract", paragraph 1
```
for OSPF and IS-IS respectively. However these specifications lack a method
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".
(Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 1, paragraph 5
```
ry" instead of the "IGP registry" where as [RFC8623] and [RFC9168] uses the
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "whereas"?

#### Section 3.2.2, paragraph 3
```
string to be used to identify the key chain. It MUST be encoded using UTF-8.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 5, paragraph 4
```
enable a man-in-the-middle attack. Thus before advertising the PCEP security
                                    ^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

It looks like there are some comments from the OPSDIR LC review that could use a new version? If agreed, let’s get a new version posted for those, and then we can schedule this on the next IESG agenda.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/

two new bits are to be registered as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Capability Description: TCP-AO Support
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Capability Description: PCEP over TLS support
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, newly revised registry will be moved from the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page to the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/

Third, a new registry is to be created called the PCED sub-TLV type indicators registry. The new registry will be located on the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/

The registration policy for the new registry is IETF Review as defined in RFC8126. Values in this registry come from the range 0-65535.  There are initial values in the new registry as follows:

    Value        Description            Reference
----------------+------------------------+-------------------------
    0            Reserved                [ RFC-to-be ][RFC5088]
    1            PCE-ADDRESS            [ RFC-to-be ][RFC5088]
    2            PATH-SCOPE              [ RFC-to-be ][RFC5088]
    3            PCE-DOMAIN              [ RFC-to-be ][RFC5088]
    4            NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN        [ RFC-to-be ][RFC5088]
    5            PCE-CAP-FLAGS          [ RFC-to-be ][RFC5088]
    6            KEY-ID                  [ RFC-to-be ]
    7            KEY-CHAIN-NAME          [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these three actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-09-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Acee Lindem , acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in PCE discovery) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IGP extension for PCEP security
capability support in PCE discovery'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-09-20. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router
  (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a
  server participating in the IGP, its presence and path computation
  capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding.  The IGP
  extensions for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) define a method
  to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for
  OSPF and IS-IS respectively.  However these specifications lack a
  method to advertise PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) security (e.g.,
  Transport Layer Security (TLS), TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO))
  support capability.

  This document defines capability flag bits for the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
  TLV that can be announced as an attribute in the IGP advertisement to
  distribute PCEP security support information.  In addition, this
  document updates RFC 5088 and RFC 5089 to allow advertisement of a
  Key ID or Key Chain Name Sub-TLV to support TCP-AO security
  capability.  Further, this document updates RFC 8231, and RFC 8306.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5027/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3351/

(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 Proposed Standard.

Yes - Proposed Standard. This document level is required for protocol extension and interoperability for advertisment of OSPF and IS-IS PCE capabilities.

(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 provides extensions to OSPF and IS-IS to advertisement the PCE Security capabilities of the advertising router. These capabilities could than be used for PCE and PC Client authentication.

Working Group Summary:

While this document has been around for some time, there wasn't much discussion until WG last call. During the WG last call, we received comments from more than a half dozen people and these were incorporated into the document. We also got RTG and SEC directorate reviews. The WG last call included both the LSR and PCE WG lists and there were reviewers from both.


Document Quality:

The document is of high quality with all the required reviews. While there aren't any implementations yet, it is a very straight forward extension.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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.

The document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and consistency comments.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(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.

No.

(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.

None.

(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.

Yes.

(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?

There is support for publication and absolutely no objactions.

(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.

All fixed in -08.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(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.

Yes - an IANA registry was moved and that impacts four RFCs listed in the updated list.

(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 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been the topic of discussion.

(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.

  The document moves the "PCE Capability Flags" registry from "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" to under the IANA Common IGP parameters registry and allocate new bits assignments for the IGP Parameters "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry.

  This document also creates  a new subregistry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.


(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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

N/A

(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 Proposed Standard.

Yes - Proposed Standard. This document level is required for protocol extension and interoperability for advertisment of OSPF and IS-IS PCE capabilities.

(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 provides extensions to OSPF and IS-IS to advertisement the PCE Security capabilities of the advertising router. These capabilities could than be used for PCE and PC Client authentication.

Working Group Summary:

While this document has been around for some time, there wasn't much discussion until WG last call. During the WG last call, we received comments from more than a half dozen people and these were incorporated into the document. We also got RTG and SEC directorate reviews. The WG last call included both the LSR and PCE WG lists and there were reviewers from both.


Document Quality:

The document is of high quality with all the required reviews. While there aren't any implementations yet, it is a very straight forward extension.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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.

The document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and consistency comments.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(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.

No.

(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.

None.

(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.

Yes.

(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?

There is support for publication and absolutely no objactions.

(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.

All fixed in -08.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(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.

Yes - an IANA registry was moved and that impacts four RFCs listed in the updated list.

(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 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been the topic of discussion.

(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.

  The document moves the "PCE Capability Flags" registry from "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" to under the IANA Common IGP parameters registry and allocate new bits assignments for the IGP Parameters "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry.

  This document also creates  a new subregistry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.


(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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

N/A

(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 Proposed Standard.

Yes - Proposed Standard. This document level is required for protocol extension and interoperability for advertisment of OSPF and IS-IS PCE capabilities.

(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 provides extensions to OSPF and IS-IS to advertisement the PCE Security capabilities of the advertising router. These capabilities could than be used for PCE and PC Client authentication.

Working Group Summary:

While this document has been around for some time, there wasn't much discussion until WG last call. During the WG last call, we received comments from more than a half dozen people and these were incorporated into the document. We also got RTG and SEC directorate reviews. The WG last call included both the LSR and PCE WG lists and there were reviewers from both.


Document Quality:

The document is of high quality with all the required reviews. While there aren't any implementations yet, it is a very straight forward extension.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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.

The document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and consistency comments.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(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.

No.

(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.

None.

(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.

Yes.

(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?

There is support for publication and absolutely no objactions.

(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.

The nits will all be fixed in the next revision.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(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.

Yes - an IANA registry was moved and that impacts four RFCs listed in the updated list.

(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 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been the topic of discussion.

(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.

  The document moves the "PCE Capability Flags" registry from "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" to under the IANA Common IGP parameters registry and allocate new bits assignments for the IGP Parameters "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry.

  This document also creates  a new subregistry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.


(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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

N/A