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 |