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 |