Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-08.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?
Adrian Farrel 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 has had a good level of discussions and review in the PCE
working group. It has not had review in any wider forums, but none was
deemed necessary or appropriate.
(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.
The document is sound.
An IPR disclosure was made just as the proto write-up was being done.
It can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1061. This
disclosure appears to be somewhat peripheral to the content of the I-D
although each person will need to make their own assessment.
The working group was immediately polled for its opinion, but there
were no comments requesting that we halt progress. The WG has been
informed that it should continue to consider the issue during IETF last
call and IESG review.
(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?
Consensus is good and relatively broad.
There was previously some significant concern expressed by one of the
chairs with respect to the applicability of this draft and its effect
on network stability. However, the authors worked closely with the
chairs to derive text that addressed the issues and both chairs now
support the work.
(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? 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].
References split.
No downrefs.
(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 defines small protocol enhancements to PCEP. The PCEP
specification is progressing through the RFC Editor process and no
formal IANA registry has yet been created. Nevertheless, this I-D
requests further allocations from the PCEP registry that IANA will
create and manage.
The IANA section of this I-D uses the same language as the PCEP
specification and, in particular, uses the same sub-registry names.
(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?
The message formats are described in relatively simple BNF as per the
PCEP specification. This is defined in a referenced document.
No automated checker has been used. The document shepherd has reviewed
the BNF by hand.
(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 Path Computation Element (PCE) is a network component,
application, or node that is capable of performing path computations
at the request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The PCE is
applied in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) networks and in Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks to
determine the routes of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) through the
network. In this context a PCC may be a Label Switching Router
(LSR), a Network Management System (NMS), or another PCE. The Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) is specified for
communications between PCCs and PCEs, and between cooperating PCEs.
When computing or re-optimizing the routes of a set of TE LSPs
through a network it may be advantageous to perform bulk path
computations in order to avoid blocking problems and to achieve more
optimal network-wide solutions. Such bulk optimization is termed
Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO). A GCO is able to
simultaneously consider the entire topology of the network and the
complete set of existing TE LSPs, and their respective constraints,
and look to optimize or re-optimize the entire network to satisfy all
constraints for all TE LSPs. A GCO may also be applied to some
subset of the TE LSPs in a network. The GCO application is primarily
a Network Management System (NMS) solution.
While GCO is applicable to any simultaneous request for multiple TE
LSPs (for example, a request for end-to-end protection), it is not
envisaged that global concurrent reoptimization would be applied in a
network (such as an MPLS-TE network) that contains a very large
number of very low bandwidth or zero bandwidth TE LSPs since the
large scope of the problem and the small benefit of concurrent
reoptimization relative to single TE LSP reoptimization is unlikely
to make the process worthwhile. Further, applying global concurrent
reoptimization in a network with a high rate of change of TE LSPs
(churn) is not advised because of the likelihood that TE LSPs would
change before they could be globally reoptimized. Global
reoptimization is more applicable to stable networks such as
transport networks or those with long-term TE LSP tunnels.
This document provides application-specific requirements and the PCEP
extensions in support of GCO applications.
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?
WG has good consensus with no disputes or disagreements.
Concerns over the impact of this work on network stability (as a
result of "churn") have been addressed with suitable text to describe
the concerns and advise the operator about the risk.
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?
There are two known implementations of the protocol extensions described
in this document.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
