Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-pce-ds-te-02.txt
Intended status : Standards Track
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
JP Vasseur is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The I-D was well discussed when first posted and then got stable fairly
quickly.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No concerns.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.
No issue specific issues.
No IPR disclosures filed.
(1.e) 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, the document specifies fairly straightforward protocol
extensions.
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No threats. No discontent.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
All checks made.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
Yes.
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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
No downward reference.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
The document requests extensions to the PCEP IANA registries.
The IANA section looks good.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
A reference to draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf is included in the document for
the BNF used in this document.
[OBJ-ORD] Farrel, A., "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax Used
in Various Protocol Specifications", draft-farrel-rtg-
common-bnf-07.txt, November 2008.
No tool has been used for verification.
(1.k) 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.
The Internet Draft [PCEP-ID] specifies the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or
between two PCEs, in compliance with [RFC4657].
Differentiated Service aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE)
addresses the fundamental requirement to be able to enforce different
bandwidth constraints for different classes of traffic. It describes
mechanisms to achieve per-class traffic engineering, rather than on
an aggregate basis across all classes by enforcing Bandwidth
Constraints (BCs) on different classes. Requirements for DS-TE and
the associated protocol extensions are specified in [RFC3564] and
[RFC4124] respectively.
As per [RFC4657], PCEP must support traffic class-type as an MPLS TE
specific constraint. However, in the present form, PCEP [PCEP-ID]
does not have the capability to specify the class-type in the path
computation request.
In this document, we define a new PCEP object called CLASSTYPE which
carries the class-type of the TE LSP in the path computation request.
During path computation, a PCE uses the class-type to identify the
bandwidth constraint of the TE-LSP.
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?
Good support and no controversy.
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, 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?
No known implementation of the I-D but several mentioned that they were
planning to implement the protocol extensions specifies in the document.
Furthermore, the protocol extensions are very straightforward.
Thanks.
JP.
