Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-Controlled Networks
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-23

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document, and in particular including the manageability considerations and a reference to where any related configuration should be found (in future).  Otherwise, no comments.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
The SHOULDs in Section 7.1 don't give any guidance about why an implementer might legitimately decide to deviate from the advice given in each case.  It would be very helpful to make this clear.

[Ballot discuss]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is very specialised and above my expertise area.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address, do not panic ;-) ), two non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody 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


# DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

## Mismatch in meta-data & the content

While the meta-data is about "standard track" the I-D itself says "informational". The IETF Last Call has been done for "standard track", so a revised I-D is enough to address this DISCUSS.

[Ballot comment]

## Section 6.2.1

s/The TLV is extended with three flags to indicate/The specifcation add three flags to the flag field of this TLV to indicate/

## Section 9.1

Should the IANA be directed to use the MSB for this allocation ?

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-21. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has two questions about the fourth action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

First, in the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

thee new registrations will be made as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: LSP-REPORT-CAPABILITY (R)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY (U)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY (I)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the XRO Subobjects registry, also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: LSP
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the LSP Exclusion Sub-Object Flag Field registry. The new registry will be located 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 RFC8126. There are eight bits (0-7) in the new registry. There are no initial registrations in the new registry. The registry has three fields: bit, Description and Reference.

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field registry. The new registry will also be located on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

IANA Question --> What is the registration procedure for the new registry? Please see RFC8126.

There are four initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: GMPLS LSP (G)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Bi-directional co-routed LSP (B)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Routing Granularity Flag (RG)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Describption: Routing Granularity Flag (RG)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that two bits are to be allocated to the Routing Granularity Flag.

IANA Question --> How many bits does the flag field have?

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, new registrations will be made:

+===========+================+=========================+=============+
| Error-Type| Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+===========+================+=========================+=============+
| 6 | Mandatory |TBD8: LABEL-REQUEST TLV |[ RFC-to-be ]|
| | Object missing |missing | |
|-----------|----------------+-------------------------+-------------+
|19 | Invalid |TBD6: LSP state info |[ RFC-to-be ]|
| | Operation |unavailable for the | |
| | |Re-optimization | |
| | +-------------------------+-------------+
| | |TBD7: LSP state info for |[ RFC-to-be ]|
| | |route exclusion not found| |
| | +-------------------------+-------------+
| | |TBDx: Attempted LSP |[ RFC-to-be ]|
| | |Update Request for GMPLS | |
| | |if stateful PCE | |
| | |capability not advertised| |
| | +-------------------------+-------------+
| | |TBDy: Attempted LSP State|[ RFC-to-be ]|
| | |Report for GMPLS if | |
| | |stateful PCE capability | |
| | |not advertised | |
| | +-------------------------+-------------+
| | |TBDz: Attempted LSP |[ RFC-to-be ]|
| | |Instantiation Request for| |
| | |GMPLS if stateful PCE | |
| | |instantiation capability | |
| | |not advertised | |
| | +-------------------------+-------------+
| | |TBD9: use of Generalized |[ RFC-to-be ]|
| | |Endpoint object type for | |
| | |non-GMPLS LSP | |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------------+-------------+

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 2023-05-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dd@dhruvdhody.com, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
  Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks'
  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 2023-05-29. 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 PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) has been extended to support
  stateful PCE functions where the Stateful PCE maintains information
  about paths and resource usage within a network, but these extensions
  do not cover all requirements for GMPLS networks.

  This document provides the extensions required for PCEP so as to
  enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in GMPLS-controlled
  networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2803/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2172/

# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

It represents a strong concurrence of a few but that is understandable for a
a specialized document that is applicable for GMPLS only.

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? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

An existing implementation is specified in the document.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No

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.

No

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]?

No

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, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document has been by both chairs and had an early RTGDIR review. It has been
updated and it is ready to hand off.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard
This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus standards track makes sense.
All attributes in Datatracker are set correctly.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

There are 2 IPR disclosures - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls.
WG was polled for IPR - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/l1uH8ro6gXat36991BucTidxcXI/
Victor - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uFYVp24GxGL4o1vZWFbQI8f-lws/
Young - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WOmYGgFtY8ZFsBBtOUHy3OW7aVY/
Haomian - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/L035l8kR7flfAyi_D550R8LvInU/
Zafar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2DstCbGU7FsoCI5seu_-4-liYEk/
Oscar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3Vik_UPY0WmHIZ620PMXLXR5XXE/

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes. Only 5 authors.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

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?

None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

None

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags] is in a post-WGLC state and waiting for AD to
progress at the time of the current shepherd report.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? 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? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

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][12]).

The IANA section is consistent with the document's body and has been reviewed.

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.

No need for Designated Expert

[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/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

It represents a strong concurrence of a few but that is understandable for a
a specialized document that is applicable for GMPLS only.

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? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

An existing implementation is specified in the document.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No

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.

No

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]?

No

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, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document has been by both chairs and had an early RTGDIR review. It has been
updated and it is ready to hand off.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard
This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus standards track makes sense.
All attributes in Datatracker are set correctly.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

There are 2 IPR disclosures - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls.
WG was polled for IPR - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/l1uH8ro6gXat36991BucTidxcXI/
Victor - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uFYVp24GxGL4o1vZWFbQI8f-lws/
Young - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WOmYGgFtY8ZFsBBtOUHy3OW7aVY/
Haomian - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/L035l8kR7flfAyi_D550R8LvInU/
Zafar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2DstCbGU7FsoCI5seu_-4-liYEk/
Oscar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3Vik_UPY0WmHIZ620PMXLXR5XXE/

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes. Only 5 authors.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

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?

None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

None

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags] is in a post-WGLC state and waiting for AD to
progress at the time of the current shepherd report.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? 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? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

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][12]).

The IANA section is consistent with the document's body and has been reviewed.

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.

No need for Designated Expert

[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/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Young Lee , Ramon Casellas

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Ramon Casellas

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Ramon Casellas

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Ramon Casellas

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Ramon Casellas

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Xian Zhang , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Ramon Casellas

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Xian Zhang , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Ramon Casellas