Skip to main content

Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-26
16 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Joel Jaeggli Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
16 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2021-03-27
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-03-08
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-02-11
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-01-29
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2021-01-28
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2021-01-28
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2021-01-28
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2021-01-25
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-01-25
16 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-01-25
16 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-01-25
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-01-25
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2021-01-25
16 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2021-01-25
16 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-01-25
16 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2021-01-25
16 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2021-01-22
16 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2021-01-21
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2021-01-21
16 Michelle Cotton IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2021-01-21
16 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2021-01-21
16 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2021-01-21
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2021-01-21
16 Cheng Li New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-16.txt
2021-01-21
16 (System) New version approved
2021-01-21
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cheng Li , Jeff Tantsura , Jonathan Hardwick , Siva Sivabalan , Stephane Litkowski , pce-chairs@ietf.org
2021-01-21
16 Cheng Li Uploaded new revision
2021-01-20
15 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2021-01-20
15 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
I mostly just have editorial/nit-level remarks, though there are a few
substantive notes, mostly relating to the security and operational
considerations.

Section 3 …
[Ballot comment]
I mostly just have editorial/nit-level remarks, though there are a few
substantive notes, mostly relating to the security and operational
considerations.

Section 3

  PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per [RFC8697] to
  associate a set of LSPs with a policy, without the need to know the
  details of such a policy, which simplifies network operations, avoids
  frequent software upgrades, as well as provides an ability to
  introduce new policies faster.

A few nits here; maybe
NEW:

  PCEP speakers can use the generic mechanism of [RFC8697] to
  associate a set of LSPs with a policy, without the need to know the
  details of such a policy.  This simplifies network operations and avoids
  frequent software upgrades, as well as provides the ability to
  introduce new policies more quickly.

Section 3.1

  or a PCE or both.  Consider a Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy

nit: https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt lists it
as "Label Switching Router".

  enabled PCC, it receives a service request via signaling, including
  over a Network-Network Interface (NNI) or User-Network Interface
  (UNI) reference point, or receives a configuration request over a
  management interface to establish a service.  [...]

I'm not really sure what this sentence is trying to say.  (The grammar
is also a little bit weird.)  Is there supposed to be some policy
associated with the received requests?  There's not much connection to
the following sentence, which says that the PCC might additionally apply
other policies, but doesn't tie into anything received by the requests
enumerated here.  Unless the following sentence is supposed to say that
the policy that gets applied depend on how it got the request, or
something like that (right now the "also" implies a distinct and
independent step)?

  PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per [RFC8697] to
  associate a set of LSPs with policy and its resulting path
  computation constraints.  [...]

Nit: we probably do want to be specific about "a policy" vs "policies"
plural -- whether or not we have to consider the intersection/union of
policies is important.

Section 4

  This Association type is operator-configured [RFC8697] association in
  nature and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers.  An
  LSP belonging to this association is conveyed via PCEP messages to
  the PCEP peer.  Operator-configured Association Range MUST NOT be set
  for this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full
  range of association identifier can be utilized.

(editorial) I think the last sentence would be improved by reframing it
to say that, by definition, all associations of type 3 are
operator-configured, so there is no need to convey an explicit
operator-configured association range, which could only serve to
artificially limit the available association IDs.

  A PAG can have one or more LSPs.  The association parameters
  including association identifier, Association type (PAT), as well as
  the association source IP address is manually configured by the
  operator and is used to identify the PAG as described in [RFC8697].

nit: singular/plural mismatch parameters/is (twice).

  and Error-Value 1 "Association type is not supported".  Since the PAG
  is opaque in nature, the PAG and the policy MUST be configured on the
  PCEP peers as per the operator-configured association procedures.

(editorial) I see that the association ID (as operator-configured) and
the policy details are opaque, but it seems that the PAG structure
itself is well-specified and not opaque.

  Associating a particular LSP to multiple policy groups is authorized
  from a protocol perspective, however, there is no assurance that the

(nit) "authorized" doesn't seem like the right word, here -- "allowed"
seems like it would work well.

  related parameters.  The encoding format and the order MUST be known
  to the PCEP peers, this could be done during the configuration of the
  policy (and its association parameters) for the PAG.  [...]

Do we expect the flexibility to specify the format at this level of fine
granularity to be used often, as opposed to defining a single "well
known" format for use within some well-defined domain of operation?
Is the format allowed to depend on the contents of (e.g.) the
VENDOR-INFORMATION TLV?
The security considerations might note that ensuring agreement among all
relevant parties (within whatever domain of operation that might be) as
to the format and layout of the policy parameters information is key for
correct operation.

  unacceptable in the context of the associated policy (e.g. out of

nit: comma after "e.g.".

Section 7

Thank you for referencing RFC 7525 as BCP 195!  (We are probably due for
an update to the BCP...)

  problems in handling of the policy for the legitimate LSPs.  It
  should be noted that, Policy association could provide an adversary

nit: the comma is unneeded, and the 'P' should be a minuscule 'p'.

  Further, extra care needs to be taken by the implementation with
  respect to POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, verifying, and
  applying these policy variables.  This TLV parsing could be exploited
  by an attacker and thus extra care must be taken while configuring
  policy association that uses POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV and making sure
  that the data is easy to parse and verify before use.

I think it's worth expounding on how the parser code is particularly
sensitive since the protocol element is just opaque and can be used to
convey data with many different internal structure/formats.  That is,
since what decoder to use is dependent on the additional metadata
associated with the policy, not just the protocol element, there is
additional risk of trying to use the wrong decoder and getting
"nonsense" results.  Magic numbers in policy formats might help
alleviate those risks.

Section 9.1

  PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs.  They MAY also allow
  configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the
  operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to
  parse the associated policy parameters TLV.

I'm a little confused at how the operator would directly "set the
encoding format" (order is perhaps more plausible".  In general this
could be an arbitrary complex binary protocol, not amenable for
description in pure configuration.  What is the actual intent of the
MUST-level requirement?

Section 9.2

  [RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
  this document.

nit: comma splice.

  The PCEP YANG module is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang].  This
  module supports associations as defined in [RFC8697] and thus
  supports the Policy Association groups.

nit: I think s/This/That/, since "this" implies some level of locality
to the current document.

Section 9.4

Would it not be possible to verify correct operation for the operation
of applying a given indicated policy (and parameters)?

Section 11.2

If use of RFC 8253 is RECOMMENDED, that would typically promote it to
being a normative reference, per
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
.
2021-01-20
15 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2021-01-20
15 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Scott Kelly for the SECDIR review.
2021-01-20
15 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-01-20
15 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2021-01-19
15 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
The use of BCP 14 language in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 seems awkward, since it appears to be discussing operator-facing features of an …
[Ballot comment]
The use of BCP 14 language in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 seems awkward, since it appears to be discussing operator-facing features of an implementation rather than interoperability concerns.  See, in particular, Section 6 of RFC 2119.
2021-01-19
15 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-01-19
15 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2021-01-19
15 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2021-01-18
15 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-01-18
15 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2021-01-16
15 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-01-05
15 Vijay Gurbani Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani. Sent review to list.
2021-01-05
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2021-01-04
15 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-01-21
2021-01-04
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2021-01-04
15 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2021-01-04
15 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2021-01-04
15 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2021-01-04
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2020-12-31
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly.
2020-12-24
15 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2020-12-22
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2020-12-22
15 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the ASSOCIATION Type Field registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

the early allocation for the following registration will be made permanent and the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Type: 3
Name: Policy Association
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

the early allocation for the following registration will be made permanent and the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Value: 48
Description: POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

two new error values will be added to Error-Type 26 as follows:

Error-Type Meaning Error-value Reference

26 Association [RFC8697]
Error
TBD: Not expecting [ RFC-to-be ]
policy parameters

TBD: Unacceptable [ RFC-to-be ]
policy parameters

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2020-12-17
15 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2020-12-17
15 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2020-12-16
15 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2020-12-16
15 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2020-12-10
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2020-12-10
15 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2020-12-10
15 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2020-12-10
15 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-12-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: hari@netflix.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-association-policy@ietf.org, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-12-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: hari@netflix.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-association-policy@ietf.org, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan , pce-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension
  for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)'
  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 2020-12-24. 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


  This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
  a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
  Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).  The
  extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a
  particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-policy/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2020-12-10
15 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-12-10
15 Deborah Brungard
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 …
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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
-> Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?
-> It is a technical specification of a protocol extension

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
-> Yes

(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 introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
  a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
  Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).  The
  extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a
  particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group.

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 concerns.

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, YANG 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?
-> The I-D has existing implementation and this has been mentioned in section 6.1.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
-> Hariharan Ananthakrishnan

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
-> Deborah Brungard

(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 has been reviewed, updated and is ready to progress.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
-> No ( We trust the RFC Editor to catch the remaining nits. )

(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.
-> N/A

(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.
-> N/A

(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

(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?
-> It reflects WG consensus.

(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.)
-> N/A

(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.
-> A reference to  a living I-D will need to be kept to the latest version.

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

(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 8126).
-> The IANA section is consistent with the document's body.

(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.
-> N/A

(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
2020-12-10
15 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2020-12-10
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2020-12-10
15 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2020-12-10
15 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2020-12-10
15 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was changed
2020-12-10
15 Cheng Li New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-15.txt
2020-12-10
15 (System) New version approved
2020-12-10
15 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stephane Litkowski , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Siva Sivabalan , Mahendra Negi , Jeff Tantsura , Cheng Li , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stephane Litkowski , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Siva Sivabalan , Mahendra Negi , Jeff Tantsura , Cheng Li , Jonathan Hardwick
2020-12-10
15 Cheng Li Uploaded new revision
2020-12-08
14 Cheng Li New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-14.txt
2020-12-08
14 (System) New version approved
2020-12-08
14 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stephane Litkowski , Cheng Li , Siva Sivabalan , Jeff Tantsura , Jonathan Hardwick , Mahendra Negi …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stephane Litkowski , Cheng Li , Siva Sivabalan , Jeff Tantsura , Jonathan Hardwick , Mahendra Negi , pce-chairs@ietf.org
2020-12-08
14 Cheng Li Uploaded new revision
2020-12-07
13 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann.
2020-10-26
13 Deborah Brungard Nic Leymann will do the RTG Dir review.
2020-10-26
13 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2020-10-19
13 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Nicolai Leymann
2020-10-19
13 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Nicolai Leymann
2020-10-13
13 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody
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 …
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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
-> Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?
-> It is a technical specification of a protocol extension

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
-> Yes

(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 introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
  a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
  Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).  The
  extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a
  particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group.

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?
-> This I-D has six authors. This work involved merging and building on ideas from earlier drafts. All the six authors have all contributed equally and represents different organizations involved.

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, YANG 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?
-> The I-D has existing implementation and this has been mentioned in section 6.1.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
-> Hariharan Ananthakrishnan

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
-> Deborah Brungard

(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 has been reviewed, updated and is ready to progress.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
-> No ( We trust the RFC Editor to catch the remaining nits. )

(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.
-> N/A

(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.
-> N/A

(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

(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?
-> It reflects WG consensus.

(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.)
-> N/A

(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.
-> A reference to  a living I-D will need to be kept to the latest version.

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

(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 8126).
-> The IANA section is consistent with the document's body.

(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.
-> N/A

(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
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2020-10-06
13 Dhruv Dhody Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2020-10-06
13 Mahendra Negi New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-13.txt
2020-10-06
13 (System) New version approved
2020-10-06
13 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jonathan Hardwick , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Siva Sivabalan , Cheng Li , Jeff Tantsura , Mahendra Negi , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jonathan Hardwick , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Siva Sivabalan , Cheng Li , Jeff Tantsura , Mahendra Negi , Stephane Litkowski
2020-10-06
13 Mahendra Negi Uploaded new revision
2020-10-05
12 Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
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 …
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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
-> Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?
-> It is a technical specification of a protocol extension

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
-> Yes

(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 introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
  a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
  Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).  The
  extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a
  particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group.

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?
-> This I-D has six authors. This work involved merging and building on ideas from earlier drafts. All the six authors have all contributed equally and represents different organizations involved.

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, YANG 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?
-> The I-D has existing implementation and this has been mentioned in section 6.1.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
-> Hariharan Ananthakrishnan

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
-> Deborah Brungard

(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 has been reviewed, updated and is ready to progress.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
-> No ( We trust the RFC Editor to catch the remaining nits. )

(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.
-> N/A

(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.
-> N/A

(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

(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?
-> It reflects WG consensus.

(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.)
-> N/A

(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.
-> A reference to  a living I-D will need to be kept to the latest version.

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

(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 8126).
-> The IANA section is consistent with the document's body.

(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.
-> N/A

(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
2020-09-29
12 Cheng Li New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-12.txt
2020-09-29
12 (System) New version approved
2020-09-29
12 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jonathan Hardwick , Cheng Li , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Mahendra Negi , Siva Sivabalan , Jeff Tantsura , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jonathan Hardwick , Cheng Li , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Mahendra Negi , Siva Sivabalan , Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski
2020-09-29
12 Cheng Li Uploaded new revision
2020-09-24
11 Dhruv Dhody Notification list changed to Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>
2020-09-24
11 Dhruv Dhody Document shepherd changed to Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
2020-09-24
11 Dhruv Dhody Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2020-09-24
11 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document
2020-06-22
11 Cheng Li New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-11.txt
2020-06-22
11 (System) New version approved
2020-06-22
11 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cheng Li , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Siva Sivabalan , Mahendra Negi , Jonathan Hardwick , Stephane Litkowski , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cheng Li , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Siva Sivabalan , Mahendra Negi , Jonathan Hardwick , Stephane Litkowski , Jeff Tantsura
2020-06-22
11 Cheng Li Uploaded new revision
2020-06-21
10 Mahendra Negi New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-10.txt
2020-06-21
10 (System) New version approved
2020-06-21
10 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahendra Negi , Siva Sivabalan , Cheng Li , Stephane Litkowski , Jeff Tantsura , pce-chairs@ietf.org, …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahendra Negi , Siva Sivabalan , Cheng Li , Stephane Litkowski , Jeff Tantsura , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jonathan Hardwick
2020-06-21
10 Mahendra Negi Uploaded new revision
2020-04-20
09 Siva Sivabalan New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-09.txt
2020-04-20
09 (System) New version approved
2020-04-20
09 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski , Cheng Li , pce-chairs@ietf.org, …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski , Cheng Li , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Mahendra Negi
2020-04-20
09 Siva Sivabalan Uploaded new revision
2020-03-09
08 Mahendra Negi New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-08.txt
2020-03-09
08 (System) New version approved
2020-03-09
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Stephane Litkowski , Jonathan Hardwick , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Mahendra Negi
2020-03-09
08 Mahendra Negi Uploaded new revision
2019-10-30
07 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-07.txt
2019-10-30
07 (System) New version approved
2019-10-30
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Mahendra Negi , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski
2019-10-30
07 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2019-08-06
06 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-06.txt
2019-08-06
06 (System) New version approved
2019-08-06
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Mahendra Negi , Stephane Litkowski
2019-08-06
06 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2019-02-03
05 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-05.txt
2019-02-03
05 (System) New version approved
2019-02-03
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski
2019-02-03
05 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2018-12-18
04 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-04.txt
2018-12-18
04 (System) New version approved
2018-12-18
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski
2018-12-18
04 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2018-06-19
03 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-03.txt
2018-06-19
03 (System) New version approved
2018-06-19
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski
2018-06-19
03 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2018-02-27
02 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-02.txt
2018-02-27
02 (System) New version approved
2018-02-27
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski
2018-02-27
02 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2017-12-30
01 (System) Document has expired
2017-06-28
01 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-01.txt
2017-06-28
01 (System) New version approved
2017-06-28
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Jonathan Hardwick , Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Stephane Litkowski
2017-06-28
01 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2017-06-19
00 (System) Document has expired
2017-05-02
00 Julien Meuric This document now replaces draft-dhody-pce-association-policy instead of None
2016-12-16
00 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-00.txt
2016-12-16
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2016-12-15
00 Dhruv Dhody Set submitter to "Dhruv Dhody ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org
2016-12-15
00 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision