Update to the Include Route Object (IRO) Specification in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-07

[Ballot comment]
I'm surprised by this comment, from the write-up:

    There were nine responses to the survey, but the majority of these respondents
    have not commented on the proposed protocol update.

... even if I also see this in the write-up:

    it was clear that the majority of implementations would either be unaffected,
    or not significantly affected, by the change in semantics and format that are
    proposed in this draft.

Anyway, I'll trust the working group did the right thing.

Regarding the survey issue, my first reaction was to include (parts of) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey-02 in an appendix.
On second thought, I'm with Alvaro: no need to mention the survey. The WHAT is important to document, not HOW you got there.

[Ballot comment]

I agree with Alvaro's 1st comment - while the WG list
does give me the impression that this is all good, the
wording of the current draft is very awkward without
the survey being referenced.

[Ballot comment]
1. WG Consensus

The Abstract talks about this document resulting from an "informal survey".  The Shepherd writeup also mentions the survey and how it was "not unanimous".  However, while the survey itself is mentioned in the document (10 times in 6 pages!), there is no reference, and more importantly nothing is mentioned about WG consensus.

What I'm getting to here is the following:  regardless of what the survey says (or not), this document is on the Standards Track so I expect the update to be the result of WG consensus.  If the survey is not even referenced (which is fine with me), then the document should forget about it and simply point at the updates.  In other words, the survey, like discussion on the mailing list, seems to have been used as a tool to reach consensus — no need to repeatedly mention the tool.

I don't think this point raises to the level of a DISCUSS because it should be an editorial change.  Even though the archives don't provide much in terms of discussion around this document (or draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey), I have to assume that it reached this point because there is in fact consensus on the update.


2. Non conforming implementations

Section 3. (Other Considerations).  Given that other interpretations of rfc5440 were possible, I think that the considerations in this section are operational, so renaming may be a good idea.  I would expect that because this is a Standards Track document that people will eventually conform to it, so I think that the "RECOMMEND" at the bottom is not needed.  [I think that's the only rfc2119 key word.]


3. Section 2.1. (Update to RFC 5440):

a. Where should the new statements be added?  I'm assuming after the first paragraph.

B. "An abstract node could be a simple abstract node…"  Is there a better way to define "abstract node" than by using it in the definition?  Maybe just point to rfc3209.

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: db3546@att.com, "Jonathan Hardwick" , draft-ietf-pce-iro-update@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG
(pce) to consider the following document:
- 'Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation
  Element communication Protocol (PCEP)'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-29. 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


  The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
  for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE,
  or between two PCEs.  RFC 5440 defines the Include Route Object (IRO)
  to specify network elements to be traversed in the computed path.
  The specification did not specify if the IRO contains an ordered or
  un-ordered list of sub-objects.  During recent discussions, it was
  determined that there was a need to define a standard representation
  to ensure interoperability.

  An informal survey was conducted to determine the state of current
  and planned implementations with respect to IRO ordering and the
  handling of an attribute of the IRO's sub-object, the Loose hop bit
  (L bit).

  This document updates RFC 5440 regarding the IRO specification, based
  on the survey conclusion and recommendation.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-iro-update/ballot/


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

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard.  The front page indicates that the document is on the standards track.  This is an appropriate type of RFC as this document updates RFC 5440, which is itself a standards track RFC.


(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.

Technical Summary:

This document updates RFC 5440 (Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)) with some additional rules about the semantics and format of the Include Route Object (IRO).  Specifically:
-  The IRO is now to be regarded as an ordered list (previously this was left to the interpretation of the implementation).
-  The IRO subobjects gain an extra bit to indicate whether they are strict or loose hops.

Working Group Summary:

A survey was done of the PCE working group to determine how current implementations interpret the IRO.  There were 9 respondents to the survey, which represents a good cross-section of PCEP implementers.  The survey results were published in [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey].  The results were not unanimous, but it was clear that the majority of implementations would either be unaffected, or not significantly affected, by the change in semantics and format that are proposed in this draft.

Document Quality:

At the time of the survey, there were already 5 implementations that conformed to the updates specified by this draft.  Several other implementers have indicated that they plan to update their implementations to be in line with this draft.  There have been no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done.

Personnel:

Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd.  Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed this document twice and have no outstanding comments.


(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 broader review is required.


(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.

No IPR has been disclosed.


(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?

Only one (very supportive) review was received during working group last call.  There were nine responses to the survey, but the majority of these respondents have not commented on the proposed protocol update.


(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 idnits tool reports one warning to do with a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work.  The draft author is currently trying to contact the original authors of RFC 5440 to find out if this disclaimer can be removed.


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

Not applicable.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.


(15) Are there downward normative references (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.

This document updates RFC 5440.  This is stated clearly on the title page and in the document abstract.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Not applicable.


(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.

This document does not request the creation of any new IANA registries.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.