(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Experimental - indicated in the title page. This is appropriate as the
document is intended to enable research into using PCEP in inter-domain
scenarios in controlled networks where all parties understand the extensions of
the draft. This experiment is discussed in section 1.1 of the document.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents.
Technical Summary:
This document specifies a standard representation and encoding of an ordered
sequence of domains in Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP). In this
context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of
address management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). The domain sequence
is used by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to stipulate a pre-determined
sequence of domains that a path must traverse. It is also used by a Path
Computation Element (PCE) to inform a PCC of a sequence of domains that a path
must traverse, without giving full details of the sub-paths within those
domains.
Working Group Summary:
There were no particular points of contention in the WG process. The consensus
behind publication of this document as an Experimental RFC appears solid.
Document Quality:
There are two existing implementations of this draft. The document has been
well reviewed by the PCEP working group, as reflected in the Acknowledgements
section. In particular, Adrian Farrel did a thorough review and provided
substantial comments, which were all addressed.
There have been no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done.
Personnel:
Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the
Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I reviewed the document and submitted several comments to the authors. These
have been addressed to my satisfaction and I believe that the document is ready
for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No broader review is required.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns. The document addresses an identified need and has been adequately
vetted.
(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, all authors have confirmed that all relevant IPR has been disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes, see http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1690/. There was not much discussion.
One of the draft's co-authors expressed surprise at the disclosure and
indicated that he may not have contributed to the document had he known about
the IPR. However, he remains listed as a co-author of the document, so I
assume that the difficulty was resolved privately.
(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?
There is a good consensus behind this document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
idnits finds no issues and one comment:
== Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
There are normative references to the following Internet drafts. All three
should progress to publication as one unit. - draft-ietf-pce-iro-update (which
is in my shepherding queue and will be looked at in the next few weeks) -
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
No issues.
(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.
None.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Not applicable.