> 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 1 November 2019.
> (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?
This document defines an approach to IP traffic engineering
using BGP and PCE. There is general consensus that this is interesting
work and it would be beneficial to the WG in developing a
possible future proposed standard solution in this space.
> 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:
> Technical Summary:
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
> introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
> there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
This document defines an architecture for providing traffic
engineering in a native IP network using multiple BGP sessions and a
Path Computation Element (PCE)-based central control mechanism. It
defines the Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR) procedures and
identifies needed extensions for the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP).
> Working Group Summary:
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
> there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?
There were occasional requests from the authors to move this away from
Experimental, which it was initially, it was decided then to move to
Informational in consultation with our AD.
> Document Quality:
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
> number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
> Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
> thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
> MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
> course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was
> the request posted?
The quality is sufficient for the stated purpose of the document.
> Who is the Document Shepherd?
> Who 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
I have reread this document as it progressed as well as in its final
form. All significant comments have been addressed. 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?
> (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
The document relates to work on-going in the PCE wg. WG LC was
coordinated with the PCE WG chairs and announced on the PCE WG list.
> (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.
> (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?
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
> so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There was no specific discussion on the disclosures other than pointing
out to the WG that the disclosures existed both during adoption and WG LC.
> (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?
I think the document has good support from a narrow set of WG participants.
> (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.)
> (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
Idnits issues have been fixed.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
> (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 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.
> (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 8126).
No requests are made in the document.
> (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, YANG modules,
> (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
> with any of the recommended validation tools
> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
> what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
> YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
> (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
There are no yang models.