Shepherd writeup

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?
>Standard Track. It 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 provides the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).  Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process.  From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation.

Working Group Summary
> The document is supported by the WG and no particular issue was raised during the WG last call.
Document Quality

> The protocol is widely implemented but I am not aware of any commercial implementation of the extensions defined in this document. The document is signed by authors from different vendors, operators and research centers, hence I guess someone has plans to develop it. The draft have been reviewed by the shepherd but no particular review was carried out. (e.g. MIB doctor etc)

>  Who is the Document Shepherd? Daniele Ceccarelli
> Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard

(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.
> The shepherd review raised a number of issues that have been solved by the authors. The new version of the document (-06) is ready to be moved forward.

(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 took place.
> No particular review is needed.

(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

(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. Polling carried out on the mailing list. All the authors and contributors replied.

(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 disclosed against this document

(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?   
> The WG as a whole supports the document. 

(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 concern raised by any member of the WG during the document lifecycle. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
> All the nits have been fixed by the authors in version -06.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
> The document does not require any formal review

(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?
> All the normative references are published RFC or approved for publication. 

(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. 
> None

(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 RFC status is updated by this document. 

(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 drafts defines new PCEP objects, PCEP TLVs,  Error types and Values. They are all correctly indicated in the IANA section with reference to the right registries. 

(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.
> All the registries to be updated are identified by the “IETF review” registration procedure.

(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.
> No automated check performed.