[Pce] Progressing draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-06
Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com> Tue, 26 July 2016 15:27 UTC
Return-Path: <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC7E12DDD7; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=metaswitch.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZleGdOv2i9G; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0098.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2BCC12DDDB; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metaswitch.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=u77yeVsnA1MpX6buvWrxwCCCtFd0d48kY6KXFvE2oGs=; b=NSMPCn5YWcHuBUZfCNtnYtrEwdXPp3FzGRJQxul9gpBefEkVa6xg6PLAOoy0NMzPrAJlF8IwNz8OUV8lV8/hssixnQPx44NCgHcsPuBjmEMRveRcWz84WkCmvwNwLeET6WIzxNOBDWuvbM/PkdnGot0E/W7n1Z45f9OcpygMQao=
Received: from BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.163.75.152) by BY2PR0201MB1909.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.163.75.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.528.16; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:53:16 +0000
Received: from BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.75.152]) by BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.75.152]) with mapi id 15.01.0528.017; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:53:16 +0000
From: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
To: "draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Progressing draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-06
Thread-Index: AdHnTTKPS5BawiaSRTOBBH68AwtOVA==
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:53:15 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0201MB1910FB93C65CACB34A8B4061840E0@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com;
x-originating-ip: [81.132.85.254]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3747afd9-7ddc-47f6-5b15-08d3b5649334
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0201MB1909; 6:weI2KHQA/ISrYsfbon+/xBsh5Xbz7ezRQznRJgfM8Y+T016qtLxHM9nhGX8T3h1g0AB6XPeJH0N0EofcjhMSX6CZudK2HG7y7pogA/WdMYC/QIzg4drNVOR4gdHjpuZtgZu1cBCxzU97V9w1LZPn1Dhb3+yUfUaTgyDNQ2wUt/HeD91uwReNxscu0flwIw4W74C9X1/JRbapbHCbVmnjCaR4Y8Yxl713HlF4BulcbDr22wp2VTBHrVv97LxngP6/Wps6mLufieo2LB9Fjf3+1wpCc6jpVKLu2tffuRN3+5Q=; 5:UtUhgCLeKHnM/Melxlq4j8qWyy/1Ax3g1GeUp79LVXq1cUPpRtxOAgbRUm+jpBy5FEsm/55jaw4Il4149F6/IVLUOujqDCELaaQN9depaEOdplNUhPhCal1XZfKPkbf7nlPEHc8a5CLSJMY0m+rUpQ==; 24:67Z7q6PTNQ6wvnl2Mk16n8TTlEnM68bwb/v0dDYuPQM2vLBYNgwiIeKN/AQf6fB9QfYtVATrkvJxEWJ1aWPVh0gOTWO4WQvgajzuAHnW9eM=; 7:7/4hxGJgXe33TYBmzVV9tZosMs3NwtMPbSP/OUpEj96C0ytbR76USxi/RzgXFnFKofP8oF8vC64W5bIiVk7dj1PjzaP0YqqIOghf0e8efgC6QFJVO+Zc7iQJfmJdvWpE0Ezm9W10YbqZGmbWesBJlEabnGuY5r7HD2cbaxfaNSQF+oX09RB/rMjEnSzRNAsrKhdzhEjCs6lMCWjgqgr7kYu+biK8yDHKQQ7VSSjgodw63xuk8L0iBJwq9h56Ij9W
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0201MB1909;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR0201MB19092CA17CD330E2321A93EE840E0@BY2PR0201MB1909.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(192374486261705)(100405760836317)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BY2PR0201MB1909; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0201MB1909;
x-forefront-prvs: 00159D1518
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(69234005)(199003)(19580395003)(2351001)(8676002)(9686002)(586003)(19300405004)(10400500002)(3280700002)(50986999)(33656002)(189998001)(19625215002)(68736007)(2906002)(54356999)(11100500001)(229853001)(8936002)(450100001)(3660700001)(110136002)(86362001)(5002640100001)(66066001)(101416001)(122556002)(106356001)(3846002)(5640700001)(97736004)(2900100001)(230783001)(5003600100003)(77096005)(105586002)(15975445007)(16236675004)(74316002)(7846002)(2501003)(81156014)(5630700001)(81166006)(87936001)(790700001)(6116002)(102836003)(76576001)(99286002)(4326007)(92566002)(7736002)(7696003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0201MB1909; H:BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: metaswitch.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY2PR0201MB1910FB93C65CACB34A8B4061840E0BY2PR0201MB1910_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: metaswitch.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jul 2016 14:53:15.7828 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9d9e56eb-f613-4ddb-b27b-bfcdf14b2cdb
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0201MB1909
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/XtkmRRHqvAZThH3MOoB-C5IXxfI>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Progressing draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-06
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:27:19 -0000
I have submitted this draft to the IESG for publication. A copy of my shepherd write-up is below FYI. Best regards Jon (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? Informational - indicated in the title page header. This is the correct type as the draft is an applicability statement. (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 A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information about Label Switched Path (LSP) characteristics and resource usage within a network in order to provide traffic engineering calculations for its associated Path Computation Clients (PCCs). This document describes general considerations for a stateful PCE deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations. Working Group Summary This document contains text that was originally included in the base stateful PCE protocol specification. The WG decided to split the text into a separate applicability statement to allow additional use cases to be contributed and the whole document edited in parallel. Use cases were contributed by several WG members for a variety of MPLS and GMPLS applications. There has been no particular controversy and the consensus behind the document is good. Document Quality The text has been worked on over a long period and has been scrutinized by several reviewers. There are several stateful PCE implementations covering the full range of scenarios presented by this applicability statement. Personnel Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard 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 IESG. I reviewed this text carefully twice, once when it was under initial development as part of the stateful PCE protocol specification, and again when preparing to submit the document for IESG review. In my opinion the document is ready to be published. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. None. (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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. N/A. (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? Good consensus across the WG. (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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Just a couple of outdated references to other drafts. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (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? No. (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. No. (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. (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). This document does not specify any actions for IANA. (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. N/A. (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. N/A.
- [Pce] Progressing draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app… Jonathan Hardwick