Skip to main content

Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-01-04
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-12-28
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-11-04
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-11-03
08 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-11-03
08 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-11-01
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-11-01
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-11-01
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-10-31
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2016-10-31
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-10-31
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-10-31
08 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-10-31
08 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-10-31
08 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-10-31
08 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-10-31
08 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2016-10-31
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-10-31
08 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-08.txt
2016-10-31
08 (System) New version approved
2016-10-31
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Xian Zhang" , "Ina Minei"
2016-10-31
08 Xian Zhang Uploaded new revision
2016-10-27
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-10-27
07 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-10-27
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-10-27
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-10-26
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-10-26
07 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-10-26
07 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Alvaro's comment. To me one important question here is if section 4 (Deployment Considerations) should be moved back into the …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Alvaro's comment. To me one important question here is if section 4 (Deployment Considerations) should be moved back into the stateful pce spec?!
2016-10-26
07 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-10-26
07 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-10-26
07 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-10-26
07 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-10-25
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-10-25
07 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-10-25
07 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-10-25
07 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
This document mostly presents application scenarios, which (by reference) serve as motivation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  However, there are a couple of places (in Section …
[Ballot comment]
This document mostly presents application scenarios, which (by reference) serve as motivation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  However, there are a couple of places (in Section 4) where the operation defined in draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is used as part of the considerations.  For example (from 4.1):

  Stateless and stateful PCEs can co-exist in the same network and be
  in charge of path computation of different types.  To solve the
  problem of distinguishing between the two types of PCEs, either
  discovery or configuration may be used.  The capability negotiation
  in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] ensures correct operation when the PCE
  address is configured on the PCC.

I see a circular dependency between this document and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce, where the considerations here are expected to motivate the extensions, but the specific extensions are used to discuss “generic issues with stateful PCE deployments”.

Given that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is a Normative Reference, I would rather see this document come back for IESG Evaluation with/after draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  Note that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is still (AFAICT) under consideration in the WG.


I am not making this comment a DISCUSS because I don’t think that it raises to the appropriate level (as only some parts of the document seem to have the dependency), and we’ll have to wait for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce to be processed before publication anyway.  However, I think that the application scenarios and motivation for future extensions should be able to be described without referring to the extensions themselves — I would then like the authors, Shepherd and the responsible AD to consider whether it is possible for this document to stand on its own, or whether we need to process it with the extensions draft.  Given that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is still in the WG, I think it is important for us to talk about it as this point.  I noted in the Shepherd’s writeup that this document used to be “originally included in the base stateful PCE protocol specification” (which I assume is draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce).

To be clear: I am not opposing the publication of this document (even though the content could have been part of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce), I just think that in the current form it should be processed/published *with* draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.


[Mechanisms from I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations and I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp are also mentioned in similar ways, and those drafts are also in process in the WG.  I’m focusing on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce above just to make the point.]
2016-10-25
07 Alvaro Retana Ballot comment text updated for Alvaro Retana
2016-10-25
07 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
This document mostly presents application scenarios, which (by reference) serve as motivation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  However, there are a couple of places (in Section …
[Ballot comment]
This document mostly presents application scenarios, which (by reference) serve as motivation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  However, there are a couple of places (in Section 4) where the operation defined in draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is used as part of the considerations.  For example (from 4.1):

  Stateless and stateful PCEs can co-exist in the same network and be
  in charge of path computation of different types.  To solve the
  problem of distinguishing between the two types of PCEs, either
  discovery or configuration may be used.  The capability negotiation
  in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] ensures correct operation when the PCE
  address is configured on the PCC.

I see a circular dependency between this document and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce, where the considerations here are expected to motivate the extensions, but the specific extensions are used to discuss “generic issues with stateful PCE deployments”.

Given that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is a Normative Reference, I would rather see this document come back for IESG Evaluation with/after draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  Note that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is still (AFAICT) under consideration in the WG.


I am not making this comment a DISCUSS because I don’t think that it raises to the appropriate level (as only some parts of the document seem to have the dependency), and we’ll have to wait for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce to be processed before publication anyway.  However, I think that the application scenarios and motivation for future extensions should be able to be described without referring to the extensions themselves — I would then like the authors, Shepherd and the responsible AD to consider whether it is possible for this document to stand on its own, or whether we need to process it with the extensions draft.  Given that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is still in the WG, I think it is important for us to talk about it as this point.  I noted in the Shepherd’s writeup that this document used to be “originally included in the base stateful PCE protocol specification” (which I assume is draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce).

To be clear: I am not opposing the publication of this document (even though the content could have been part of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce), I just think that in the current form it should be published *with* draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.


[Mechanisms from I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations and I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp are also mentioned in similar ways, and those drafts are also in process in the WG.  I’m focusing on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce above just to make the point.]
2016-10-25
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-10-17
07 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-10-17
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-10-16
07 Dan Romascanu Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu.
2016-10-14
07 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2016-10-14
07 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-10-14
07 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2016-10-14
07 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2016-10-07
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-10-07
07 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
2016-10-06
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2016-10-06
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2016-10-06
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2016-10-06
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2016-10-05
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell
2016-10-05
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell
2016-10-03
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-10-03
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, "Jonathan Hardwick" , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, "Jonathan Hardwick" , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG
(pce) to consider the following document:
- 'Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)'
  as Informational RFC

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 2016-10-17. 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


  A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information about
  Label Switched Path (LSP) characteristics and resource usage within a
  network in order to provide traffic engineering calculations for its
  associated Path Computation Clients (PCCs).  This document describes
  general considerations for a stateful PCE deployment and examines its
  applicability and benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations
  through a number of use cases.  PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP)
  extensions required for stateful PCE usage are covered in separate
  documents.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2016-10-03
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-10-03
07 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-10-27
2016-10-03
07 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2016-10-03
07 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2016-10-03
07 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2016-10-03
07 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2016-10-03
07 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2016-09-27
07 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07.txt
2016-09-27
07 Xian Zhang New version approved
2016-09-27
07 Xian Zhang Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Xian Zhang" , "Ina Minei"
2016-09-27
07 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-09-13
06 Xian Zhang Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda.
2016-08-25
06 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2016-08-24
06 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tomonori Takeda
2016-08-24
06 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tomonori Takeda
2016-07-26
06 Jonathan Hardwick

(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?  …

(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?

  Informational - indicated in the title page header.
  This is the correct type as the draft is an applicability statement.


(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

  A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information about
  Label Switched Path (LSP) characteristics and resource usage within a
  network in order to provide traffic engineering calculations for its
  associated Path Computation Clients (PCCs).  This document describes
  general considerations for a stateful PCE deployment and examines its
  applicability and benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations.

Working Group Summary

  This document contains text that was originally included in the base
  stateful PCE protocol specification.  The WG decided to split the
  text into a separate applicability statement to allow additional
  use cases to be contributed and the whole document edited in parallel.
  Use cases were contributed by several WG members for a variety of MPLS
  and GMPLS applications.  There has been no particular controversy and
  the consensus behind the document is good.

Document Quality

  The text has been worked on over a long period and has been scrutinized
  by several reviewers.  There are several stateful PCE implementations
  covering the full range of scenarios presented by this applicability
  statement.

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 this text carefully twice, once when it was under initial
  development as part of the stateful PCE protocol specification, and
  again when preparing to submit the document for IESG review.  In my
  opinion the document is ready to be published.


(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.


(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.

  N/A.


(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?

  Good consensus across the WG.


(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.

  Just a couple of outdated references to other drafts.


(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.


(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).

  This document does not specify any actions for IANA.


(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.

2016-07-26
06 Jonathan Hardwick Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2016-07-26
06 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-07-26
06 Jonathan Hardwick IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-07-26
06 Jonathan Hardwick IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-07-26
06 Jonathan Hardwick Changed document writeup
2016-07-08
06 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-06.txt
2016-06-28
05 Jonathan Hardwick Changed document writeup
2016-06-28
05 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2016-06-28
05 Jonathan Hardwick Notification list changed to "Jonathan Hardwick" <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>
2016-06-28
05 Jonathan Hardwick Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hardwick
2016-06-28
05 Jonathan Hardwick Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2015-10-19
05 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-05.txt
2015-04-28
04 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-04.txt
2014-10-25
03 Ina Minei New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-03.txt
2014-06-09
02 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-02.txt
2013-11-06
01 Julien Meuric Set of documents this document replaces changed to draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app from None
2013-09-24
01 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-01.txt
2013-08-15
00 Xian Zhang New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-00.txt