[Pce] Publication Request for draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt

Hi Ross,

Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt

Intended status : Informational 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. Both co-chairs (JP Vasseur and Adrian
Farrel) have reviewed the document. They think that the document is ready to
be forwarded 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 document has been discussed and reviewed by several key WG members.
Further, Sandy Murphy from the Security Directorate made a thorough review
of the document 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg01393.html) and Adrian
Farrel has worked with the authors to address the comments.

> (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 specific concern about this document. The requirements expressed in this
document had a good support in the WG and complement the generic
requirements for the PCECP defined in RFC4657.

There was no filed IPR disclosure related to this document.

> (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. No concern or additional comments received during WG Last
Call.

> (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?

The Document has been checked.

> (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?

This document makes no requests for IANA action

> (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?

No such formal language is used.

> (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.

[RFC4216] defines the scenarios motivating the deployment of inter-AS
   Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE) and
   specifies the requirements for inter-AS MPLS TE when the ASes are
   under the administration of one Service Provider (SP) or the
   administration of different SPs.

   Three signaling options are defined for setting up an inter-AS TE
   LSP:
       1) contiguous TE LSP as documented in [RFC5151];
       2) stitched inter-AS TE LSP discussed in [RFC5150];
       3) nested TE LSP as in [RFC4206].

   [RFC5152] defines mechanisms for the computation of inter-domain TE
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using network elements along the
   signaling paths to compute per-domain constrained path segments. The
   mechanisms in [RFC5152] do not guarantee an optimum constrained path
   across multiple ASes where an optimum path for an TE LSP is one that
   has the smallest cost, according to a normalized TE metric (based
   upon a TE metric or Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) metric adopted
   in each transit AS) among all possible paths that satisfy the LSP TE
   constraints.

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] is a component that is
   capable of computing paths for MPLS TE and Generalized Multiprotcol
   Label Switching Protocol ((G)MPLS TE) LSPs. The requirements for a
   PCE have come from SP demands to compute optimum constrained paths
   across multiple areas and/or domains, and to be able to separate the
   path computation elements from the forwarding elements.

   The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is defined to allow
   communication between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs, and
   between PCEs. The PCEP is used to request (G)MPLS TE paths and to
   supply computed paths in response. Generic requirements for the
   PCEP are discussed in [RFC4657]. This document provides a set of
   PCEP requirements that are specific to inter-AS (G)MPLS TE path
   computation.

>        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?

The PCE WG has good consensus with no disagreement.

>        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?

draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt is a requirement document.