[Pce] Progressing draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-11
Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com> Tue, 28 June 2016 20:37 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 D552512D841; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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, 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 tNq54JOnMTUz; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0731.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:731]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A07512D838; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:37:41 -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=0WF6DsmDkHuFHnFx9cGSklAdW7x0tRjQS0sHkFa5MYU=; b=VBucJVEW+ECU9jbG7o0k2r1CuaQjpVksZrWsvntjQKTHqzAWkj30+dLKRMmAhr5rrxKCJAn5JojFgy2JSEtoXMjU7GAAbOQifoLf80n6naBpgyFturSzFf+JPdRBRNilvX58YeNYe5zFe5q/z6YT2ucKHE2bXDUpSCPTJf/axmE=
Received: from BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.163.75.152) by BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.163.75.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.528.16; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:37:23 +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, 28 Jun 2016 20:37:23 +0000
From: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
To: "draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Progressing draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-11
Thread-Index: AdHRfH1aUug2zSBHSPyXGzh2dZAYRg==
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:37:23 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0201MB19106E5B46DB468208C4BA3B84220@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: [81.132.84.33]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 703d5079-88ce-47a8-ef55-08d39f94028b
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0201MB1910; 6:J3uBwU46f5KlyPBhiYlKr9mNuDn4MZ3ihM1WNNp9ZiZh2y2hT7QO4xHuR89US+RIlzWln50HGPSnf9Htc/I4jFjkNPOK8XDcqTSVmp61F/J9jhmC1CmFFK98/exe8WpRASRA4yEV28wq7OpL2SFWv1Lru4HKMFuCqdEXu7Ol+fn0CuOlQxtUOk/HYOVyXbSTI5kZ0DoyWcJIeUTiM5uzZuusBwEL4DdNQ51CW2TSPaFVELifwqSqM489iNV1jkXp+UoNqa5uKU/JL39ojQFVuBTVaDqk4qm/uG8Co7i66/4=; 5:NioIyUne7nBOfUzlyRxg+gCbdetyDQGIiQuVpilv7OBnK0ZA4i4MZ6rGM3IIOn/+SILE1npL4U5Fas/cT64ECMB+3JvZ56uy15WOopVfbrNuZb5sZbydK4myG05CJq9/9iIcbpt5n9RU+jnT53JXrQ==; 24:Q45chbWf4i2p6WSXIH6kx+OjjTSEHJKHyJeveKf1cUKn+lnGO2dHI5OUKx8cHXWkcN1pNnv8FCg/pM+fRbPf0p3m0DjizY61xrLisotsPz4=; 7:JaKSGfxV6NCy5blS/gJ5HNmbe1ug7OrVt/RitYb8uIrRGa0HUXy4fWUYqgTeFWveLkKK5O5ZCcYc9eGKZLBwOKjjItZx20cPxsdrEZJh2QNjmVIjH1/sJZS6GrbgZZTyYon5Iw1V5horlYV/1Xa4bxgQQbuo2rqabmB0E/fHN7q2yz/iyZvgJX6mOKgd5Xd8FjM+8TfvI4N8oskZ7JApLRy0tbMvsoPAKU16usTIvHFGxX0cOiOreAU9tmankGGw
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0201MB1910;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR0201MB191092E27E927BFC06FF1FF084220@BY2PR0201MB1910.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:BY2PR0201MB1910; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0201MB1910;
x-forefront-prvs: 0987ACA2E2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(199003)(69234005)(189002)(19580395003)(3660700001)(66066001)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(3280700002)(16236675004)(7696003)(7736002)(5003600100003)(2501003)(586003)(19625215002)(50986999)(106356001)(9686002)(8936002)(5002640100001)(54356999)(101416001)(11100500001)(3846002)(102836003)(87936001)(5640700001)(5630700001)(2906002)(7846002)(4326007)(790700001)(6116002)(450100001)(68736007)(76576001)(97736004)(74316001)(229853001)(33656002)(2900100001)(77096005)(15975445007)(86362001)(110136002)(189998001)(122556002)(92566002)(19300405004)(230783001)(10400500002)(105586002)(99286002)(2351001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0201MB1910; H:BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX: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_BY2PR0201MB19106E5B46DB468208C4BA3B84220BY2PR0201MB1910_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: metaswitch.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Jun 2016 20:37:23.3190 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9d9e56eb-f613-4ddb-b27b-bfcdf14b2cdb
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0201MB1910
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/sLXyHhSb84E-CUFOxaVojXkaMLA>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Progressing draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-11
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, 28 Jun 2016 20:37:45 -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)? Proposed standard. Why is this the proper type of RFC? It defines protocol extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP). Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes. (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 This document describes extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss and link bandwidth utilization as constraints for end to end path computation. Working Group Summary There were no contentious issues while the working group worked on this document. Document Quality At least one implementation of this protocol exists. The document did not receive many comments on-list in the PCE working group. It received a Performance Metrics Directorate review. 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 the document during working group last call. The protocol changes are straightforward. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Besides mine, there were not many reviews of this document posted to the mailing list. However, the document has a good range of authors and contributors, and support for this document from the WG does seems to be there. (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. N/A. (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. N/A. (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, on the PCE mailing list. (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? The WG supports publication of the document. (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. N/A. (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). IANA actions are clearly specified, covering all protocol extensions. One new sub-registry is created and is fully specified. (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-pcep-service-awa… Jonathan Hardwick