Skip to main content

Inter-AS Requirements for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP)
draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2008-09-12
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-09-12
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-09-12
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2008-09-12
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-09-12
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-09-12
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-09-10
06 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2008-07-31
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-07-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Pasi Eronen
2008-07-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Pasi Eronen
2008-07-18
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-07-17
2008-07-17
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-07-17
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-07-17
06 Amy Vezza Last Call was requested by Amy Vezza
2008-07-17
06 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation by Ross Callon
2008-07-17
06 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2008-07-17
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-07-17
06 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Yes by Mark Townsley
2008-07-17
06 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-07-17
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-07-17
06 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-07-17
06 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-07-17
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-07-17
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-07-16
06 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-07-16
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-07-16
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-07-15
06 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-07-14
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2008-07-14
06 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2008-07-14
06 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2008-07-14
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-07-14
06 (System) Last call text was added
2008-07-14
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-07-11
06 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2008-07-11
06 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-07-17 by Ross Callon
2008-05-09
06 Cindy Morgan
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
>        …
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.
2008-05-09
06 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-05-07
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt
2008-05-06
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-05.txt
2008-02-22
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-04.txt
2007-10-04
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Pasi Eronen.
2007-09-06
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Pasi Eronen
2007-09-06
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Pasi Eronen
2007-07-31
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-03.txt
2007-07-24
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-02.txt
2006-10-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-01.txt
2006-08-29
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-00.txt