Shepherd writeup
rfc7334-08

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
- Experimental

Why is this the proper type of RFC?
- Implementation beyond prototype is not clear, but current type does not prevent a future upgrade.

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 ability to compute paths for constrained point-to-multipoint
   (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) across
   multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement for the
   deployment of P2MP services in MPLS and GMPLS-controlled networks.
   The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been recognized as an
   appropriate technology for the determination of inter-domain paths of
   P2MP TE LSPs.

   This document describes an experiment to provide procedures and
   extensions to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) for the
   computation of inter-domain paths for P2MP TE LSPs.

Working Group Summary

- No controversy. Two proposals came out as individual submissions and got merged before moving to WG I-D.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
- Yes

Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification?
- Not really, thus the experimental type.

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? 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?
- Adrian Farrel

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.
- No technical issue, mainly minor comments or request for clarification/rephrasing to improve readability.

If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
- N/A

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  
- Not so many reviews (as expected considering document type).

(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

(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.
- N/A

(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, they have.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
- Yes. The author from the involved company sent his apology, explaining the late disclosure as a mix-up with the same IPR claim already disclosed on RFC 6006.

(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?
- Looks more like a consensus among authors and agreement from others.   

(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.
- No nit.

(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?
- N/A

(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. 
- N/A

(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).
- No IANA section (experimental).

(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.
- N/A

(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.
- N/A
Back