Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture
draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-11

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well-written document.  A procedural point: as Dhruv is listed as a contributing author, it would have been better had someone else been assigned as the document shepherd.  Not a big thing, but something to remember for next time.

A couple of minor editorial comments:

— Section 3.2.2 —

  The value part comprises of -

We don’t say “comprises of”, and the dash isn’t right. Make it:

  The value part comprises:

— Section 3.3.2 —

  The usage of Domain-ID TLV, carried in an OPEN object, is used to

Remove “usage of”, as it’s redundant.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well-written document.  A couple of minor editorial comments:

— Section 3.2.2 —

  The value part comprises of -

We don’t say “comprises of”, and the dash isn’t right. Make it:

  The value part comprises:

— Section 3.3.2 —

  The usage of Domain-ID TLV, carried in an OPEN object, is used to

Remove “usage of”, as it’s redundant.

[Ballot comment]
A few simple items in the Security Considerations (Section 8):
(1) s/security requirements defined in [RFC5440]/security considerations defined in [RFC5440]/.  The motivation for this change is that the discussion of vulnerabilities and mitigations in [RFC5440] also applies.

(2) Please include a reference to RFC7525 when recommending TLS/RFC8253

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

thanks for this Document. I have a couple of comments/suggestions:

3.2.1
  If the PCE understands the H-PCE path computation request but did not
  advertise its H-PCE capability, it MUST send a PCErr message with
  Error-Type=TBD8 ("H-PCE error") and Error-Value=1 ("Parent PCE
  Capability not advertised").
I believe the description of the error is incorrect and should be: "H-PCE Capability not advertised"


3.6.  SVEC Object
  o  O (Domain diverse) bit - TBD14
You call it the O bit here but not in the IANA registry. I guess the two should be consistent.


In IANA section:
s/H-PCE-FLAGS/H-PCE-FLAG/ (twice)
s/assign three new/assign four new/

typos
s/suitible /suitable/
s/Aditionally/Additionally/

[Ballot comment]
(1) rfc6805 should be a Normative reference; the contents reflect its importance in the definition of the extensions, and this text in the Introduction confirms it:

  This document defines the PCEP extensions for the purpose of
  implementing Hierarchical PCE procedures, which are described in
  [RFC6805].

[I am not balloting this point as a DISCUSS because I believe it is easy to resolve and trust the Responsible AD.]

(2) The Shepherd's writeup mentions the existence of "commercial as well as open source implementations" -- these are documented in Appendix A.  What code points are used in those implementation?  Is the code deployed (in production)?  I'm asking because all the code points (except the ones defined in this document, of course) have not been assigned by IANA...and have to wonder about potential collision (or even squatting).

[I realize the Authors may not have an answer available...it would be very nice if someone (Authors/Shepherd/Chair/AD/anyone) would check.  There might be nothing to worry about; better safe than sorry.]

(3) §3.2.2: It is not clear to me whether the Domain Type is a bit field (one per type), or if there are 256 possible types.  Please clarify.

(4) Related to the last point...  §7.3 doesn't list which range is unassigned...nor whether the value 0 (assuming it is not a bit field) is available to assignment or not.

(5) Please add a reference for PCEP-LS?

(6) [nit] s/achild/a child

(7) [nit] §3.2.1.1: The first paragraph is missing the closing ".

[Ballot comment]
I recommend to also use normative language in section 6, especially 6.1.2.:
"The parent PCE must only accept path computation requests from
  authorized child PCEs.  If a parent PCE receives requests from an
  unauthorized child PCE, the request should be dropped."

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for responding to the Gen-ART comments and my DISCUSS ballot.

Upon re-reading 4.1 with my new understanding of the OPEN semantics, it's not totally clear why the "shoulds" in this section (dealing with the error conditions) are non-normative.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART reviewer noted that there seems to be one case of how OPEN is handled that is under-specified. In Section 3.2.1 and Section 4.1, if the originator sends an OPEN with P set to 0 and the response has P set to 1, what is the originator expected to do?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are ten actions which we must complete.

All nine actions below are registrations in registries on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

First, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry, three, new registrations are made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Domain-ID TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: H-PCE-FLAG TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry is to be created on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

called the H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field registry. The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined in RFC 8126.

The new registry will have initial values as follows

Bit Description Reference
------------------------------------------------------
31 P (Parent PCE Request bit) [ RFC-to-be ]
30-0 Unassigned

Third, a new registry is to be created on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

called the Domain-ID TLV Domain type registry. The new registry will be managed via IETF Review as defined by RFC 8126.

The new registry will have initial values as follows:

Value Meaning Reference
-------------------------------------------------------
1 2-byte AS number [ RFC-to-be ]
2 4-byte AS number [ RFC-to-be ]
3 4-byte OSPF area ID [ RFC-to-be ]
4 Variable length IS-IS area ID [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> Is the value 0 reserved or unassigned?

Fourth, a new registry is to be created on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

called the H-PCE-FLAGS TLV Flag Field registry. The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined by RFC 8126.

The new registry will have initial values as follows

Bit Description Reference
-----------------------------------------------
31 S (Domain [ RFC-to-be ]
Sequence bit)
30 D (Disallow Domain [ RFC-to-be ]
Re-entry bit)
29-0 Unassigned

Fifth, in the Objective Function registry, three, new codepoints are to be registered as follows:

Code Point: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Minimum number of Transit Domains (MTD)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code Point: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Minimize numer of Border Nodes (MBN)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code Point: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Minimize the number of Common Transit Domains (MCTD)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> Should the first registration be "Minimize the number of Transit Domains" to be consistent with section 3.4.1 of the current document?

Sixth, in the METRIC object T field registry, two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Domain Count metric
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Border Node Count metric
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Seventh, in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry a new Error Type is to be registered as follows:

Error-Type Meaning and error values Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[ TBD-at-Registration ] H-PCE Error [ RFC-to-be ]

Error-value=1 H-PCE Capability not advertised

Error-value=2 Parent PCE Capability cannot be provided

Eighth, also in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry a new Error Value is to be registered for the existing Error Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object):

Error-Type Meaning and error values Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Reception of an invalid object [RFC5440]

Error-value=[ TBD-at-Registration ]:
Incompatible OF codes in H-PCE [ RFC-to-be ]

Ninth, in the NO-PATH Object Flag Field registry, four new bits are registered as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Destination Domain unknown
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Unresponsive child PCE(s)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: No available resource in one or more domain
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Destination is not found in the indicated domain
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> The text of Section 7.8 says that there are three new bit flag fields, but there are four separate registrations provided. Are all four registrations the intent of section 7.8?

Tenth, in the SVEC Object Flag Field registry, a single, new bit is to be registered as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Domain Diverse
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, Dhruv Dhody , draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements (PCE)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Extensions to Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)
  for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements (PCE)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-04-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture is
  defined in RFC 6805.  It provides a mechanism to derive an optimum
  end-to-end path in a multi-domain environment by using a hierarchical
  relationship between domains to select the optimum sequence of
  domains and optimum paths across those domains.

  This document defines extensions to the Path Computation Element
  Protocol (PCEP) to support Hierarchical PCE procedures.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3422/

Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate because the draft specifies protocol
    extensions. The title page identifies the draft as Standards Track.

(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:

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.

  The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture is
  defined in RFC 6805.  It provides a mechanism to derive an optimum
  end-to-end path in a multi-domain environment by using a hierarchical
  relationship between domains to select the optimum sequence of
  domains and optimum paths across those domains. This document defines
  extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to support
  Hierarchical PCE procedures.


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 controversies. The document was initially marked experimental and after
    discussion within the WG it was moved to proposed standards. The consensus
    behind the document is good and it is bases for further H-PCE related work
    such as stateful H-PCE and ACTN.

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?

    There are several PCEP implementations supporting H-PCE. This
    includes commercial as well as open source implementations.
    This information can be found in the appendix.

    Substantial review was done by Adrian Farrel and Dhruv Dhody.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Dhruv Dhody 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.

    In my opinion, the document is ready. The shepherd review provided
    comments and suggestion to the authors which were handled during the latest
    update.

(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.

    The usual Routing Directorate's review is expected.

(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.

    No

(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. An IPR check was done in Sep 2018.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

    Yes. One "late" IPR disclosure.  The inventors and the document authors are different and the disclosure ("no-assert") was made when this was discovered.

(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 document triggered various discussions and it has been carefully
    reviewed by a few interested individuals. Overall it can be considered as a
    consensus of the WG as a whole.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

    None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    Not Applicable

(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).

    The IANA section is clear. It mixes new request and import from
    another RFCs in an precise manner.

(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.

    Not Applicable.

(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.)

    Not Applicable.

Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate because the draft specifies protocol
    extensions. The title page identifies the draft as Standards Track.

(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:

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.

  The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture is
  defined in RFC 6805.  It provides a mechanism to derive an optimum
  end-to-end path in a multi-domain environment by using a hierarchical
  relationship between domains to select the optimum sequence of
  domains and optimum paths across those domains. This document defines
  extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to support
  Hierarchical PCE procedures.


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 controversies. The document was initially marked experimental and after
    discussion within the WG it was moved to proposed standards. The consensus
    behind the document is good and it is bases for further H-PCE related work
    such as stateful H-PCE and ACTN.

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?

    There are several PCEP implementations supporting H-PCE. This
    includes commercial as well as open source implementations.
    This information can be found in the appendix.

    Substantial review was done by Adrian Farrel and Dhruv Dhody.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Dhruv Dhody 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.

    In my opinion, the document is ready. The shepherd review provided
    comments and suggestion to the authors which were handled during the latest
    update.

(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.

    The usual Routing Directorate's review is expected.

(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.

    No

(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.

    No IPR disclosures for this document.

(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 document triggered various discussions and it has been carefully
    reviewed by a few interested individuals. Overall it can be considered as a
    consensus of the WG as a whole.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

    None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    Not Applicable

(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).

    The IANA section is clear. It mixes new request and import from
    another RFCs in an precise manner.

(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.

    Not Applicable.

(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.)

    Not Applicable.

Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate because the draft specifies protocol
    extensions. The title page identifies the draft as Standards Track.

(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:

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.

  The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture is
  defined in RFC 6805.  It provides a mechanism to derive an optimum
  end-to-end path in a multi-domain environment by using a hierarchical
  relationship between domains to select the optimum sequence of
  domains and optimum paths across those domains. This document defines
  extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to support
  Hierarchical PCE procedures.


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 controversies. The document was initially marked experimental and after
    discussion within the WG it was moved to proposed standards. The consensus
    behind the document is good and it is bases for further H-PCE related work
    such as stateful H-PCE and ACTN.

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?

    There are several PCEP implementations supporting H-PCE. This
    includes commercial as well as open source implementations.
    This information can be found in the appendix.

    Substantial review was done by Adrian Farrel and Dhruv Dhody.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Dhruv Dhody 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.

    In my opinion, the document is ready. The shepherd review provided
    comments and suggestion to the authors which were handled during the latest
    update.

(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.

    The usual Routing Directorate's review is expected.

(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.

    No

(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.

    No IPR disclosures for this document.

(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 document triggered various discussions and it has been carefully
    reviewed by a few interested individuals. Overall it can be considered as a
    consensus of the WG as a whole.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

    None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    Not Applicable

(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).

    The IANA section is clear. It mixes new request and import from
    another RFCs in an precise manner.

(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.

    Not Applicable.

(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.)

    Not Applicable.