(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
- Standard Track
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
- It defines 2 codepoints in PCEP.
Is this type of RFC 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:
The Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) is used to convey path
computation requests and responses between Path Computation Clients
(PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs), and also between
cooperating PCEs. In PCEP the path computation requests carry
details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC
wishes the PCE to apply in its computation.
This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Variable that
can be carried in any existing PCEP object.
Working Group Summary
- No strong controversy on the document, but the comment about the actual need of defining proprietary fields within a standard protocol came up several times.
- Some implementations claim to use the extensions defined in the I-D.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
- Julien Meuric
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
- Stewart Bryant
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.
- Simple specification and clear document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
(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?
(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.
- Those appearing on the front page have.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
- It seems that the WG understands, some supporting, others feeling unharmed.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
(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
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
(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).
- 2 codepoint allocations, consistent with the body.
(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.
(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.