Use of the Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) List for Synchronized Dependent Path Computations
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-05

[Ballot comment] Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list: Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical? Section 5.1: if the PCE can ...

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list:
    Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical?

Section 5.1: if the PCE can't handle the associated SVEC objects it "may
send a PCErr message".  This implies it might construct the paths
anyway.  Is there a mechanism to inform the PCC that the requested
associations were not considered during path construction?

[Ballot comment] Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list: Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical? Section 5.1: if the PCE can ...

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list:

Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical?

Section 5.1: if the PCE can't handle the associated SVEC objects it "may
send a PCErr message".  This implies it might construct the paths
anyway.  Is there a mechanism to inform the PCC that the requested
associations were not considered during path construction?

[Ballot comment] Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list: Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical? Section 5.1: if the PCE can ...

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list:

Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical?

Section 5.1: if the PCE can't handle the associated SVEC objects it "may send a PCErr message".  This implies it might construct the paths anyway.  Is there a mechanism to inform the PCC that the requested associations were not considered during path construction?

[Ballot discuss] The following Last Call comment was part of the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia posted on 3 March 2010: > > Section 5.2, first ...

[Ballot discuss]
The following Last Call comment was part of the Gen-ART Review by
  Miguel Garcia posted on 3 March 2010:
  >
  > Section 5.2, first sentence in the 2nd paragraph. I guess the
  > sentence looks incomplete. At least, it looks like an introductory
  > part, but there is no consequence:
  >
  >  If a PCC sends path computation requests to a PCE and then sends
  >  another path computation requests, which are dependent on the
  >  first requests and has been associated by using a SVEC list.
  >
  Adrian asked the authors to provide fixed text, but it has not
  appeared yet.

> (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 ...

> (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.
He has personally reviewed the document 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 been discussed and reviewed by the Working group.

> (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.

> (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.

> (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?

Checks have been made. No Errors.

> (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?

No 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.

A Path Computation Element (PCE) performing dependent path
computations, for instance calculating a diverse working and
protected path not sharing common network points, would need to
synchronize the computations in order to increase the probability of
meeting the working and protected path diversity (or disjointness)
objective and network resource optimization objective. When a PCE
computes multiple sets of dependent path computation requests
concurrently, it is required to use Synchronization VECtor (SVEC)
list for association among the sets of dependent path computation
requests. SVEC is also applicable to end-to-end diverse path
computation across multiple domains. This document describes the
usage of SVECs in the SVEC list and diverse path computation
guideline, for the synchronized computation of dependent paths.

> 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?

No controversy.

> 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?

For information (the document is informational and does not specify
protocol extensions)
there is at least one implementation that we are aware of.