Please publish draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-05.txt as a
Standards Track RFC.
Please note that this document has a dependency on
draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt. The two documents may be
progressed in parallel, or the OSPF document may be progressed
ahead of this one.
Here is the Document Shepherd write-up.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Adrian Farrel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Yes
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG
members and from key non-WG members?
Yes. Cross-review to IS-IS WG held with significant input
received.
Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns.
(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.
No concerns.
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.
None has been 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?
WG agrees.
(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.
(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.
Yes.
Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs
to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type
reviews?
Yes.
(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?
There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-isis-caps that
is in the RFC Editor Queue.
As noted above, there is a normative reference to
pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt. That document is advancing for
publication at the same time.
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].
There are downrefs as common for new IS-IS Standards Track
documents. Those listed are:
[ISO] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the
Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO DP 10589, February 1990.
[RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
RFC 3567, July 2003.
It is believed that the first of these is commonly referenced as
normative without any issue as it is a stable, external
document.
It is believed that ISIS WG action is under way to promote RFCs
3567 and 3784 to Standards Track.
(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].
IANA section is correct.
IANA allocation is dependent on the registries created for
draft-ietf-isis-caps that is in the RFC Editor Queue.
Identification of the registries is, therefore, necessarily
slightly ambiguous.
Note that the IANA registries are, in part, common with
pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt. That document is advancing for
publication at the same time.
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?
None required.
(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?
Not applicable.
(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
There are various circumstances where it is highly desirable for a
Path Computation Client (PCC) to be able to dynamically and
automatically discover a set of Path Computation Elements (PCE),
along with some information that can be used for PCE selection. When
the PCE is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the
Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating
passively in the IGP, a simple and efficient way to discover PCEs
consists of using IGP flooding. For that purpose this document
defines extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) routing protocol for the advertisement of PCE Discovery
information within an IS-IS area or within the entire IS-IS routing
domain.
Working Group Summary
The Working Group had consensus on this document.
Document Quality
It is currently unclear whether these protocol extensions have been
implemented. Note, however, that the protocol procedures are
identical to those in draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt that have
been implemented.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Adrian Farrel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Who is the Responsible Area Director(s)?
Ross Callon, David Ward.
Is an IANA expert needed?
No.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
