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)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
Proposed standard. This is appropriate as the document describes extensions to
the PCE protocol. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.
(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
This document describes extensions to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the
computation of paths for Point to Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs). This document corrects several errata in the
original RFC 6006.
Working Group Summary
There was no controversy in the working group. The only changes relative to
RFC 6006 are straightforward errata corrections. This document progressed
rapidly through the working group.
Document Quality
There is at least one implementation of this protocol, which is why the errata
in RFC 6006 were raised, and are now being fixed.
Personnel
Jon Hardwick is 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 this document twice - once at working group adoption and again at
last call. I also reviewed the errata at the time they were raised. I have no
concerns about the document or the validity of the errata that are being fixed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The document makes small changes to RFC 6006, which has already gone
through the review and publication process. This present bis draft also had
one other detailed review from Adrian Farrel. The changes to RFC 6006 were also
presented and discussed at IETF 97 without any disagreement.
(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.
Not applicable
(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.
None.
(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.
Yes. Huawei originally filed an IPR disclosure against RFC 6006, which is also
applicable to this draft, so it has been re-filed against this draft. There is
no new IPR corresponding to the changes relative to RFC 6006, just the original
IPR disclosure from 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?
This is the strong concurrence of a few individuals.
I think this is acceptable as the fixes it makes are straightforward and
obvious.
(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.
There is one nit regarding pre-RFC5378 boilerplate text.
RFC 6006 was first drafted before 10 November 2008 and we have not been able to
get confirmation from all the original authors that they will grant BCP78
rights to the IETF trust, so I think that the boilerplate is still required.
(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?
No.
(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.
Yes, it will obsolete RFC 6006. This is mentioned in the title page header, the
abstract and the introduction.
(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).
The IANA considerations section requests IANA to update its registry to refer
to this new RFC-to-be instead of RFC 6006. There are no other requests.
(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.