Local Protection Enforcement in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11

[Ballot comment]
Thank you very much for writing this document - I found it easy to read, and useful.

As others have said, please update the Abstract to explain how this document Updates: 5440.

I also support Roman's DISCUSS - the interaction of the definitions should be clearer.

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 5.  There is seemingly conflicting guidance on the interpreting the E and L flag.

Statement #1
      When E flag is set to 0, the value of the L flag SHOULD be
      respected as selection criteria;

Statement #2
  When the L flag is set to 1 and the E flag is set to 0, then the PCE
  MUST consider the protection eligibility as a PROTECTION PREFERRED
  constraint.

Statement #3
  When L flag is set to 0 and E flag is set to 1, then the PCE MUST
  consider the protection eligibility as an UNPROTECTED MANDATORY
  constraint.

-- The Statement #1 appears to be weaker (SHOULD) than Statement #2 and 3.

-- What is the difference between “respecting [something] in the selection criteria” and “consider[ing] the protection eligibility”?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef for the SECDIR review.

** Abstract.  This document updates RFC5440 but does not explicitly say that in this section.

** Section 7.
  Securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS)
  [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in
  [RFC7525] is RECOMMENDED.

RFC7525 has been replaced by RFC9325.

[Ballot comment]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10

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), and one nit.

Special thanks to Julien Meuric for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

As noted by Jim Guichard, id-nits exhibits some issues that should be fixed before publication.

## Section 3

Is there a reason why PROTECTION MANDATORY uses BCP14 uppercase terms while PROTECTION PREFERRED uses a lower case "should" ? Especially because in section 5, "SHOULD" and "MAY" are used.

# NITS

## Section 4.2

Isn't "boolean bit" a little redundant ?

[Ballot comment]
=== Comments ===

- from idnits -> The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5440, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

- from idnits - the authors should check the miscellaneous warnings, especially paying attention to the comments re: RFC 5378. I do not see anything in the shepherd write-up about this.

- Section 9 - Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7525 (Obsoleted by RFC 9325)

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the LSPA Object Flag Field registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

the temporary registration for:

Bit: 6
Description: Protection Enforcement

will be made permanent and its reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-06-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Local Protection Enforcement in 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-06-02. 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 extends the base specification to clarify usage of the
  local protection desired bit signalled in the Path Computation
  Element Protocol (PCEP).  This document also introduces a new flag
  for signalling protection strictness in PCEP.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement/



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

## Document History

1.  Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
-> Concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent
  (update following interop tests)

2.  Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
    the consensus was particularly rough?
-> No

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
-> No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document?
-> Yes
Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement?
-> Yes
Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
-> Cf. Section 6 of the document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
-> Links with RSVP-TE (TEAS & MPLS WGs) and Segment Routing (Spring WG).
  Reviews would be welcome.

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

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
-> N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
-> N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is
- needed -> yes,
- clearly written -> yes,
- complete -> yes,
- correctly designed -> yes,
- ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? -> yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
-> N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])?
-> Proposed Standard
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
-> It updates a PS protocol.
Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
-> Yes

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
-> Yes
To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
-> The authors were requested to respond about the IPR policy.
  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LbOePvX814Apdrho3Al81Peb3yc/]

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?
-> Yes
If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
-> 4 authors

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
-> Nits corrected after review.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
-> No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
-> N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
-> No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
-> No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
-> The document updates an RFC.
If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction?
-> Yes
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
-> The IANA section is consistent.
  Only a flag is required, and it was already assigned through the early allocation process.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
-> N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

## Document History

    Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
-> Concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent
  (update following interop tests)

    Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
    the consensus was particularly rough?
-> No

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
-> Links with RSVP-TE (TEAS & MPLS WGs) and Segment Routing (Spring WG).
  Reviews would be welcome.

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

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
-> N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
-> N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is
- needed -> yes,
- clearly written -> yes,
- complete -> yes,
- correctly designed -> yes,
- ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? -> yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
-> N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])?
-> Proposed Standard
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
-> It updates a PS protocol.
Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
-> Yes

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
-> Yes
To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
-> The authors were requested to respond about the IPR policy.
  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LbOePvX814Apdrho3Al81Peb3yc/]

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?
-> Yes
If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
-> 4 authors

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
-> Nits corrected after review.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
-> No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
-> N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
-> No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
-> No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
-> The document updates an RFC.
If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction?
-> Yes
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
-> The IANA section is consistent.
  Only a flag is required, and it was already assigned through the early allocation process.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
-> N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

## Document History

    Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
-> Concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent
  (update following interop tests)

    Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
    the consensus was particularly rough?
-> No

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
-> Links with RSVP-TE (TEAS & MPLS WGs) and Segment Routing (Spring WG).
  Reviews would be welcome.

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

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
-> N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
-> N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is
- needed -> yes,
- clearly written -> yes,
- complete -> yes,
- correctly designed -> yes,
- ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? -> yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
-> N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])?
-> Proposed Standard
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
-> It updates a PS protocol.
Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
-> Yes

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]?
-> Yes
To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
-> The authors were requested to respond about the IPR policy.
  [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LbOePvX814Apdrho3Al81Peb3yc/]

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?
-> Yes
If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
-> 4 authors

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
-> Nits corrected after review.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
-> No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
-> N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
-> No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
-> No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
-> The document updates an RFC.
If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction?
-> Yes
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
-> The IANA section is consistent.
  Only a flag is required, and it was already assigned through the early allocation process.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
-> N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/