Skip to main content

Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-12-11
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-11-22
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-11-13
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-10-19
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-10-19
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2017-10-19
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2017-10-18
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2017-10-16
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-10-16
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-10-16
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-10-16
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-10-16
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-10-16
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2017-10-16
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-10-16
11 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2017-10-13
11 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2017-10-09
11 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for considering my Discuss.

Previous comments follow - I didn't check for these in the new version.

In this text,

  The …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for considering my Discuss.

Previous comments follow - I didn't check for these in the new version.

In this text,

  The State Timeout Interval timer ensures that a PCE crash does not
  result in automatic and immediate disruption for the services using
  PCE-initiated LSPs.  PCE-initiated LSPs are not removed immediately
  upon PCE failure.  Instead, they are cleaned up on the expiration of
  this timer.  This allows for network cleanup without manual
  intervention.  The PCC SHOULD support removal of PCE-initiated LSPs
  as one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout
  Interval timer.  The behavior SHOULD be picked based on local policy,
  and can result either in LSP removal, or in reverting to operator-
  defined default parameters.

I found myself wondering why “The PCC SHOULD support removal of PCE-initiated LSPs” is a SHOULD, and not a MUST, but if it’s a SHOULD, you might say something about the effects of not supporting this, in order to help implementers make an informed decision about whether to support it.

In the same text, I found myself wondering if there were other alternatives to local policy for the last SHOULD, which is, of course, the last stop on the way to asking why this isn’t a MUST …
2017-10-09
11 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] Position for Spencer Dawkins has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2017-10-09
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-10-09
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-10-09
11 Jonathan Hardwick New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11.txt
2017-10-09
11 (System) New version approved
2017-10-07
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ina Minei , Edward Crabbe , Robert Varga , Siva Sivabalan
2017-10-07
11 Jonathan Hardwick Uploaded new revision
2017-09-20
10 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2017-08-31
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-08-30
10 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-08-30
10 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-08-30
10 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]
Document: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10.txt

Note: I reviewed this document on my experimental Phabricator instance.
You can see the comments inline at:

  https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D20


It may …
[Ballot comment]
Document: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10.txt

Note: I reviewed this document on my experimental Phabricator instance.
You can see the comments inline at:

  https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D20


It may just be my unfamiliarity with this system, but it's not clear
to me what the security model is here for the delegation. As I
understand this document the PCC just tells the PCE that it has
delegated the LSP to it, and then the PCE can make the LSP via the
normal procedures. But what is it that tells the rest of the system
that the PCC is allowed to manage that LSP. I didn't get that out of
this document or out of a cursory look at RFC 8051.


INLINE COMMENTS
Line 162
  A possible use case is a software-driven network, where applications
  request network resources and paths from the network infrastructure.
NIT: isn't the term here "software-defined network"


Line 218
  all state related to the LSP and sends a PCRpt for the removed state.
  See details in Section 5.4.
A diagram would sure help here.


Line 263
  Unassigned bits are considered reserved.  They MUST be set to 0 on
  transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
As I understand this text, you are merely adding a new code point to flags. I'm not sure it's necessary to reproduce the PDU, but if you do, you should clarify that th only change you are making is adding a new field. Perhaps on line 249 "It is reproduced here with the addition of the new I bit"


Line 278
  and the LSP objects, and MAY contain other objects, as discussed
  later in this section.
Is the syntax here supposed to be ABNF? If so, you need a citation to the syntax".


Line 337
      create an LSP.  If set to 1, it indicates a request to remove an
      LSP.
I have the same comment here about repeating PDU.


Line 436
  The LSP object is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and included
  here for easy reference.
This is good text, and is what I would encourage the other places you replicate PDUs from other documents.
2017-08-30
10 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-08-30
10 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
Just some minor comments:

(1) Section 3.2

  This document defines a new PCEP message, the LSP Initiate Request
  (PCInitiate) message, which …
[Ballot comment]
Just some minor comments:

(1) Section 3.2

  This document defines a new PCEP message, the LSP Initiate Request
  (PCInitiate) message, which a PCE can send to a PCE to request the
  initiaton or deletion of an LSP.

s/...PCE can send to a PCE.../...PCE can send to a PCC...


(2) Section 5.3: "The source address MAY be either specified or left up to the PCC decision using the 0.0.0.0 value."  These seem to be the only two possible options, so s/MAY/MUST.


(3) Also from Section 5.3: "...the END-POINTS object MAY be included to explicitly convey the destination...For LSPs to be setup by other means, the END-POINTS object MAY be omitted..."

You already wrote that "other setup methods are outside the scope".  Also, not including the END-POINTS object is not an indication of other types of LSPs, as its use is optional to start with.  Take out the last sentence.
2017-08-30
10 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-08-30
10 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-08-30
10 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-30
10 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-08-29
10 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
Section 5.1 defines the PCInititate Message, and is generally pretty good about indicating where its component elements come from; however, it's missing pointers …
[Ballot comment]
Section 5.1 defines the PCInititate Message, and is generally pretty good about indicating where its component elements come from; however, it's missing pointers to , , and . I think you want to add: ", , and  are defined in [RFC5440]".

Section 5.3 indicates that an indication that the PCC is supposed to pick the source address is signaled by using a source address of "0.0.0.0" -- presumably, if the destination is an IPv6 address, this would instead use "::", right? Please add text that addresses the IPv6 case.

I'm pretty certain that [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] is a normative reference. Even though its use is optional, this document contains normative statements regarding its mechanism. See  for guidance, and "Note 1" of that statement in particular.
2017-08-29
10 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2017-08-28
10 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-08-27
10 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot discuss]
This ballot position would be Please Educate Me, if that was a choice, but that's not a choice. I'm sure we can clear …
[Ballot discuss]
This ballot position would be Please Educate Me, if that was a choice, but that's not a choice. I'm sure we can clear this quickly. And I found this document very easy to read as a reviewer - thanks for that.

I found a couple of places where SHOULDs seemed at least under-specified, and this one looked important.

In this text,

  LSP State Synchronization procedures are described in section 5.4 of
  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  During State Synchronization, a PCC
  reports the state of its LSPs to the PCE using PCRpt messages,
  setting the SYNC flag in the LSP Object.  For PCE-initiated LSPs, the
  PCC MUST also set the Create Flag in the LSP Object and MAY include
  the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV identifying the PCE that requested the LSP
  creation.  At the end of state synchronization, the PCE SHOULD
  compare the reported PCE-Initiated LSPs with its configuration.  For
  any mismatch, the PCE SHOULD send a PCInitiate message to initiate
  any missing LSPs and/or remove any LSPs that are not wanted.

I’m having a hard time understanding why a PCE would not compare reported PCE-Initiated LSPs with its configuration, which is allowed by the first SHOULD. Does that mean you thought it was important to TRY to synchronize, but you’re not curious enough to check whether that worked?

I can imagine reasons why you wouldn't try to fix the LSPs that weren't synchronized, at least not immediately, but you might also give guidance about one or more reasons why you wouldn't try, to help implementers understand what not doing what the SHOULD means, and make informed choices for their implementations.
2017-08-27
10 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
In this text,

  The State Timeout Interval timer ensures that a PCE crash does not
  result in automatic and immediate disruption …
[Ballot comment]
In this text,

  The State Timeout Interval timer ensures that a PCE crash does not
  result in automatic and immediate disruption for the services using
  PCE-initiated LSPs.  PCE-initiated LSPs are not removed immediately
  upon PCE failure.  Instead, they are cleaned up on the expiration of
  this timer.  This allows for network cleanup without manual
  intervention.  The PCC SHOULD support removal of PCE-initiated LSPs
  as one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout
  Interval timer.  The behavior SHOULD be picked based on local policy,
  and can result either in LSP removal, or in reverting to operator-
  defined default parameters.

I found myself wondering why “The PCC SHOULD support removal of PCE-initiated LSPs” is a SHOULD, and not a MUST, but if it’s a SHOULD, you might say something about the effects of not supporting this, in order to help implementers make an informed decision about whether to support it.

In the same text, I found myself wondering if there were other alternatives to local policy for the last SHOULD, which is, of course, the last stop on the way to asking why this isn’t a MUST …
2017-08-27
10 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-25
10 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it is also not published yet...?

2) I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations should also be …
[Ballot comment]
1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it is also not published yet...?

2) I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations should also be a normative references, given a flag is used in section 4.1 and a TLV is used in section 5.3.2 that are defined in that draft.

3) sec 5.4: "A PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that were initiated by the PCE." and
  "If the PLSP-ID specified in the PCInitiate message was not created by a PCE.."
  -> This means that the PCC must remember which LSP was created by which PCE at instantiation time. This could be stated more explicitly.
2017-08-25
10 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-25
10 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it is also not published yet...?

2) I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations should also be …
[Ballot comment]
1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it is also not published yet...?

2) I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations should also be a normative references, given a flag is used in setion 4.1 and a TLV is used in section 5.3.2 that are defined in that draft.

3) sec 5.4: "A PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that were initiated by the PCE." and
  "If the PLSP-ID specified in the PCInitiate message was not created by a PCE.."
  -> This means that the PCC must remember which LSP was created by which PCE at instantiation time. This could be stated more explicitly.
2017-08-25
10 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-24
10 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-08-24
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2017-08-24
10 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-08-24
10 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2017-08-24
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2017-08-23
10 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-08-23
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-08-22
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ron Bonica.
2017-08-21
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-21
10 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We have a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

We understand that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document:

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

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

The temporary registration:

Value: 12
Description Initiate
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

Second, in the new registry to be created upon approval of the Internet Draft ietf-pce-stateful-pce called the LSP Object Flag field also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

a new value is to be added as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Create
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> We note that the authors request that the bit to be used for this registration is 4. However, this bit is marked "reserved" in the current LSP Object Flag field registry. Do the authors intend to move bit 4 from the "reserved" part of the registry to a bit that is used?

Third, a new registry is to be created called the SRP Object Flag Field registry. The new registry will be on the
Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined in [ RFC5226 ].

IANA Question --> Are there 32 values in this registry ( 0-31)? If so, are all the values from 0-30 available (unassigned) for future registration or are some of the values to be reserved?

Fourth, in the new registry to be created upon approval of the Internet Draft ietf-pce-stateful-pce called the Stateful PCE Capability TLV's Flag field also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

a new value is to be added as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: I (LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We note that the authors request that bit 29 be used for this registration. We also note that this registry already appears on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page.

Fifth, 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/

the following TEMPORARY registrations will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Error-Type Meaning

10 Invalid Object
Error-value=8: SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV missing

19 Invalid operation
Error-value=6: PCE-initiated LSP limit reached
Error-value=7: Delegation for PCE-initiated LSP cannot
be revoked
Error-value=8: Non-zero PLSP-ID in PCInitiate message
Error-value=9: LSP is not PCE-initiated
Error-value?: PCE-initiated operation-frequency limit
reached

23 Bad parameter value
Error-value=1: SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in use
Error-value=2: Speaker identity included for an LSP
that is not PCE-initiated

24 LSP instantiation error
Error-value=1: Unacceptable instantiation parameters
Error-value=2: Internal error
Error-value=3: Signaling error

The IANA Services Operator understands that these five 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
2017-08-15
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2017-08-15
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2017-08-10
10 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2017-08-10
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2017-08-10
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2017-08-10
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2017-08-10
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2017-08-09
10 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-09
10 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Julien Meuric , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Julien Meuric , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP
Setup in a Stateful PCE Model'
  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 2017-08-23. 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
  mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
  computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

  The extensions for stateful PCE provide active control of
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label
  Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates
  control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE.  This
  document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs
  under the stateful PCE model.





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

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


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




2017-08-09
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-08-09
10 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-31
2017-08-09
10 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2017-08-09
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2017-08-09
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2017-08-09
10 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2017-08-09
10 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2017-06-22
10 Jonathan Hardwick New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10.txt
2017-06-22
10 (System) New version approved
2017-06-22
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ina Minei , Edward Crabbe , Siva Sivabalan , Robert Varga
2017-06-22
10 Jonathan Hardwick Uploaded new revision
2017-04-06
09 Victoria Pritchard Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard.
2017-03-21
09 Deborah Brungard Routing Directorate review assigned to Victoria Pritchard.
2017-03-21
09 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2017-03-19
09 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Victoria Pritchard
2017-03-19
09 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Victoria Pritchard
2017-03-17
09 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

Defines protocol extensions.

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

  The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
  mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
  computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

  The extensions for stateful PCE provide stateful control of
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label
  Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates
  control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE.  This
  document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs
  under the stateful PCE model.

Working Group Summary

Given the consensus to consider it, the WG had to update its charter to include that work, which was at the boundary of the former scope. This I-D complements draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

There are several implementations, including one open source (OpenDaylight).

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

Yes, even more than plans.

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?

Some updates have been triggered by a couple of operators, thanks to some interoperability testing between several implementations.

If there was a MIB 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?

N/A

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Julien Meuric

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 review triggered some updates, interoperability feedback resulted in some clarifications.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Identified clarifications have been incorporated.

(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.

Usual Routing Directorate's review is expected.

(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.

Even if non controversial, it took a long time to the authors to update the I-D after shepherd review, thus bringing the WG chairs to take action.

(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 associated IPR disclosure.

(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? 

The document triggered various discussions and can be considered as a consensus of the WG as a whole.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

OK.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB 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 (normative referenced I-Ds are ready to go).

(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.

N/A.

(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).

IANA section looks fine and has already been used to request early allocation.

(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.

No identified expert review.

(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.

None.
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-03-07
09 Julien Meuric Changed document writeup
2017-03-07
09 Jonathan Hardwick New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-09.txt
2017-03-07
09 (System) New version approved
2017-03-07
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ina Minei , Edward Crabbe , Siva Sivabalan , Robert Varga
2017-03-07
09 Jonathan Hardwick Uploaded new revision
2017-03-07
08 Julien Meuric Changed document writeup
2017-03-04
08 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-08.txt
2017-03-04
08 (System) New version approved
2017-03-04
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ina Minei , Edward Crabbe , Siva Sivabalan , Robert Varga
2017-03-04
08 Ina Minei Uploaded new revision
2017-01-19
07 (System) Document has expired
2016-11-29
07 Julien Meuric Pending responses to IPR poll.
2016-11-29
07 Julien Meuric IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2016-11-29
07 Julien Meuric Changed document writeup
2016-11-21
07 Julien Meuric Notification list changed to "Julien Meuric" <julien.meuric@orange.com>
2016-11-21
07 Julien Meuric Document shepherd changed to Julien Meuric
2016-07-18
07 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07.txt
2016-07-07
06 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-06.txt
2015-10-19
05 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05.txt
2015-04-20
04 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04.txt
2015-03-05
03 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03.txt
2014-10-25
02 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02.txt
2014-06-06
01 Edward Crabbe New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-01.txt
2013-12-03
00 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00.txt