(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. The front page indicates that the document is on the
standards track. This is an appropriate type of RFC as the protocol it
describes has been implemented and is intended for deployment, but has not yet
seen widespread deployment.
(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.
Technical Summary:
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is a PCE whose path computations take
into account the resources and interactions of the currently active paths in
the network. A stateful PCE uses a reliable state synchronization mechanism to
learn the set of active paths from its Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and peer
stateful PCEs. The basic state synchronization procedure is part of the
stateful PCE specification. This draft describes various optional
optimizations to the state synchronization procedure, and specifies the
required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions.
Working Group Summary:
There was some strong opposition from members of the WG to publishing these
optimizations in the base stateful PCE specification, because they wanted to
keep the base specification as streamlined as possible. The WG therefore
decided instead to publish these optimizations separately from the base
stateful PCE protocol. Apart from this, there were no particular points of
contention in the WG process. The consensus behind publication of this
document as a Standards Track RFC appears solid.
Document Quality:
There are at least two implementations of the optimizations described in this
document. The document has had several reviews by members of the working group.
There have been no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done.
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 the document twice, at different stages of its lifetime, and
submitted several comments to the authors. These have been addressed to my
satisfaction and I believe that the document is ready for publication.
(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 broader review is required.
(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.
No concerns. Although the document concerns optimizations, and we must not
optimize prematurely, nevertheless the optimizations are well-motivated by
specific, realistic scenarios.
(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.
No IPR has been disclosed.
(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?
A reasonable cross-section of the WG expressed their support of advancing this
document during last call, so the consensus appears fairly strong.
(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.
None.
(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?
There is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. Ideally, these
two documents would progress to publication at the same time.
(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).
No issues.
(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.
This document does not request the creation of any new IANA registries.
(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.