Skip to main content

Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-01-30
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2023-01-12
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2022-12-16
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2022-11-01
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2022-11-01
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2022-11-01
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2022-10-31
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2022-10-24
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2022-10-24
09 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2022-10-24
09 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2022-10-24
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2022-10-24
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2022-10-24
09 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2022-10-24
09 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2022-10-24
09 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2022-10-24
09 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2022-10-24
09 John Scudder IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-10-23
09 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/J2jEQIJoyAsZEbtU5IK14E3yROA). …
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/J2jEQIJoyAsZEbtU5IK14E3yROA).

## Comments

### Section 3.1, paragraph 7
```
    LSP Extended Flags: this contains an array of units of 32-bit flags
    numbered from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit
    represents one LSP flag (for operation, feature, or state).
    Currently no bits are assigned.  Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero
    on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
```
Should this document give some encoding guidance, e.g., "the LSP Extended Flags
field SHOULD (MUST?) use the minimal amount of space needed to encode the flag
bits"? Otherwise one would be free to have trailing 32-bit values with all flags
zero.

### Section 3.2, paragraph 2
```
    The LSP Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags, to be
    allocated starting from the most significant bit.  The bits of the
    LSP Extended Flags field will be assigned by future documents.  This
    document does not define any flags.  Unassigned flags MUST be set to
    zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.  Implementations
    that do not understand any particular flag MUST ignore the flag.
```
What "unassigned flags" are will change as assignments are made, so this text
would require implementations to (closely) track IANA assignments. Did you maybe
mean "flags that an implementation is not supporting" instead?

### Section 4, paragraph 2
```
    Following the model provided in [RFC8786] Section 3.1, we provide the
    following advice for new specifications that define additional flags.
    Each such specification is expected to describe the interaction
    between these new flags and any existing flags.  In particular, new
    specifications are expected to explain how to handle the cases when
    both new and pre-existing flags are set.  They are also expected to
    discuss any security implications of the additional flags (if any)
    and their interactions with existing flags.
```
I think you mean "describe the interaction between these new flags and *all
existing assigned* flags". That still leaves the issue of what to do when two
documents simultaneously define new flags; that would need to be caught during
standardization.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 2
```
or operation, feature, or state). Currently no bits are assigned. Unassigned
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
2022-10-23
09 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2022-10-23
09 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-10-23
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-10-23
09 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-09.txt
2022-10-23
09 Quan Xiong New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Quan Xiong)
2022-10-23
09 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-10-22
08 John Scudder
See my email about one additional change needed (to complete addressing Lars' DISCUSS) and two additional changes suggested (to complete addressing other reviewers' COMMENTs).

Thanks! …
See my email about one additional change needed (to complete addressing Lars' DISCUSS) and two additional changes suggested (to complete addressing other reviewers' COMMENTs).

Thanks!

--John
2022-10-22
08 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder, Quan Xiong (IESG state changed)
2022-10-22
08 John Scudder IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-10-22
08 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-10-22
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-10-22
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2022-10-22
08 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-08.txt
2022-10-22
08 Quan Xiong New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Quan Xiong)
2022-10-22
08 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-10-20
07 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder, Quan Xiong (IESG state changed)
2022-10-20
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2022-10-20
07 Andrew Alston [Ballot comment]
I support Lars's discuss on this, and think the change to RFC2119 terminology would ensure more consistent implementations.
2022-10-20
07 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2022-10-20
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/J2jEQIJoyAsZEbtU5IK14E3yROA). …
[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/J2jEQIJoyAsZEbtU5IK14E3yROA).

## Discuss

### 2119 terms

This document has some ambiguities that would be clarified by using
RFC2119 terms in a few more places:

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 2
```
-    Note that PCEP peers MAY encounter varying lengths of the LSP-
-                          ^^  --------
+    Note that PCEP peers MUST handle varying lengths of the LSP-
+                          ^^^ +++++
```

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 3
```
-    than it currently supports or understands, it will simply ignore the
-                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
+    than it currently supports or understands, it MUST ignore the
+                                                  ^^^^
```

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 4
```
-    than the one supported by the implementation, it will consider the
-                                                    ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^
+    than the one supported by the implementation, it MUST treat the
+                                                    ^^^^ ^^ ^^
```

#### Section 5, paragraph 2
```
-    not understood by an implementation would be ignored.  It is expected
-                                        ^^^^^
+    not understood by an implementation MUST be ignored.  It is expected
+                                        ^^^^
```
2022-10-20
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 3.1, paragraph 7
```
    LSP Extended Flags: this contains an array of units of 32-bit flags
  …
[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 3.1, paragraph 7
```
    LSP Extended Flags: this contains an array of units of 32-bit flags
    numbered from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit
    represents one LSP flag (for operation, feature, or state).
    Currently no bits are assigned.  Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero
    on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
```
Should this document give some encoding guidance, e.g., "the LSP Extended Flags
field SHOULD (MUST?) use the minimal amount of space needed to encode the flag
bits"? Otherwise one would be free to have trailing 32-bit values with all flags
zero.

### Section 3.2, paragraph 2
```
    The LSP Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags, to be
    allocated starting from the most significant bit.  The bits of the
    LSP Extended Flags field will be assigned by future documents.  This
    document does not define any flags.  Unassigned flags MUST be set to
    zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.  Implementations
    that do not understand any particular flag MUST ignore the flag.
```
What "unassigned flags" are will change as assignments are made, so this text
would require implementations to (closely) track IANA assignments. Did you maybe
mean "flags that an implementation is not supporting" instead?

### Section 4, paragraph 2
```
    Following the model provided in [RFC8786] Section 3.1, we provide the
    following advice for new specifications that define additional flags.
    Each such specification is expected to describe the interaction
    between these new flags and any existing flags.  In particular, new
    specifications are expected to explain how to handle the cases when
    both new and pre-existing flags are set.  They are also expected to
    discuss any security implications of the additional flags (if any)
    and their interactions with existing flags.
```
I think you mean "describe the interaction between these new flags and *all
existing assigned* flags". That still leaves the issue of what to do when two
documents simultaneously define new flags; that would need to be caught during
standardization.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 2
```
or operation, feature, or state). Currently no bits are assigned. Unassigned
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
2022-10-20
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2022-10-19
07 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-10-19
07 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2022-10-17
07 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document - it seems clear and useful.

Also, much thanks to Bo Wu for the very helpful OpsDir …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document - it seems clear and useful.

Also, much thanks to Bo Wu for the very helpful OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2022-10-11/), and to the authors for working with them to address it.
2022-10-17
07 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2022-10-17
07 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Shivan Kaul Sahib for the SECDIR review.

** Section 9.  Perhaps repeat what is already said in Section 4 here …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Shivan Kaul Sahib for the SECDIR review.

** Section 9.  Perhaps repeat what is already said in Section 4 here (“They are also expected to discuss any security implications of the additional flags (if any) and their interactions with existing flags.”):

OLD
  This document provides for future addition of flags in the LSP
  Object.

NEW
This document provides for the future addition of flags in the LSP Object.  The documents which will specific these flags must discuss their associate security implications.
2022-10-17
07 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-10-17
07 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]

In the security considerations it says:

  This document provides for future addition of flags in the LSP
  Object.  No additional security …
[Ballot comment]

In the security considerations it says:

  This document provides for future addition of flags in the LSP
  Object.  No additional security issues are raised in this document
  beyond those that exist in the referenced documents.  Note that the
  [RFC8231] recommends that the stateful PCEP extension are
  authenticated and encrypted using Transport Layer Security (TLS)
  [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in
  [RFC7525].

It feels that it is trying to say "these flags are protected by the TLS recommendation", but it could probably say that a bit more clearly.
2022-10-17
07 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2022-10-17
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2022-10-17
07 Robert Wilton [Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.  It was well written and clear.  No comments, not even any nits.

Regards,
Rob
2022-10-17
07 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-10-17
07 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 1

While I am not sure whether the description of the current use of the 12 bits is useful: suggest to replace `Thus, it is required to extend the flag field of the LSP Object for future use.` but ``This document extends the flag field of the LSP Object for other use.` (it should age better)

### Section 3.1

`Length (16 bits): multiple of 4 octets.` is rather confusing... Is this field counting 32-bit words ? I had to read RFC 5440 to understand that the 'value' part is always a multiple of 4 octets. Strongly suggest to say "Length (16 bits): length of the value expressed in octets".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
2022-10-17
07 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2022-10-15
07 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2022-10-13
07 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2022-10-12
07 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-10-20
2022-10-12
07 John Scudder Ballot has been issued
2022-10-12
07 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder
2022-10-12
07 John Scudder Created "Approve" ballot
2022-10-12
07 John Scudder IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup
2022-10-12
07 John Scudder Ballot writeup was changed
2022-10-12
07 Andrew Campling Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Andrew Campling. Sent review to list.
2022-10-12
07 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07.txt
2022-10-12
07 Quan Xiong New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Quan Xiong)
2022-10-12
07 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-10-11
06 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-10-11
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-10-11
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2022-10-11
06 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-06.txt
2022-10-11
06 Quan Xiong New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Quan Xiong)
2022-10-11
06 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-10-11
05 John Scudder
Authors,

It looks like there are some outstanding comments from OPSDIR and SECDIR LC reviews. Can you have a look, and reply and/or update the …
Authors,

It looks like there are some outstanding comments from OPSDIR and SECDIR LC reviews. Can you have a look, and reply and/or update the draft as appropriate? I note that with respect to the SECDIR review, Dhruv has already proposed some text.

Once that's done I'll send the document for IESG review.

Thanks,

--John
2022-10-11
05 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder, Quan Xiong (IESG state changed)
2022-10-11
05 John Scudder IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup
2022-10-11
05 Bo Wu Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Bo Wu. Sent review to list.
2022-10-11
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2022-10-10
05 Shivan Sahib Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shivan Sahib. Sent review to list.
2022-10-10
05 Jim Reid Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Andrew Campling
2022-10-10
05 Jim Reid Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Andrew Campling
2022-10-10
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-10-10
05 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG
Reference: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field registry.

The new registry will be located on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

The new registry will be maintained via Standards Action as defined in RFC 8126. The registry will contain registrations for bits 0-31. Each registration will have a Bit number, Capability description, and a Reference. There are no initial registrations in the new registry.

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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist
2022-10-08
05 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2022-09-29
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shivan Sahib
2022-09-29
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shivan Sahib
2022-09-29
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2022-09-29
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2022-09-29
05 Dan Romascanu Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Dan Romascanu was rejected
2022-09-29
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2022-09-29
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2022-09-28
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu
2022-09-28
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu
2022-09-27
05 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-09-27
05 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dd@dhruvdhody.com, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dd@dhruvdhody.com, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag
Extension for Stateful 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-11. 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


  RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to Path Computation Element
  Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE
  and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP.  One of the
  extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field with a
  length of 12 bits.  However, all bits of the Flag field have already
  been assigned in RFC 8231, RFC 8281, RFC 8623 and I-D.ietf-pce-
  binding-label-sid.

  [Note to RFC Editor - Replace I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid to RFC
  XXXX, once the RFC number is assigned.]

  This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the
  LSP object for an extended flag field.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2022-09-27
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-09-27
05 John Scudder Last call was requested
2022-09-27
05 John Scudder Last call announcement was generated
2022-09-27
05 John Scudder Ballot approval text was generated
2022-09-27
05 John Scudder Ballot writeup was generated
2022-09-27
05 John Scudder IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-09-27
05 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-09-27
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-09-27
05 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05.txt
2022-09-27
05 Quan Xiong New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Quan Xiong)
2022-09-27
05 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-09-23
04 John Scudder See AD review sent to WG mailing list.
2022-09-23
04 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder, Quan Xiong (IESG state changed)
2022-09-23
04 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2022-09-20
04 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-09-20
04 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-09-14
04 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-04.txt
2022-09-14
04 (System) New version approved
2022-09-14
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Quan Xiong
2022-09-14
04 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-09-08
03 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick.
2022-08-17
03 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2022-08-17
03 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2022-08-17
03 John Scudder Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Now that all the 12 bits in the flag field of the LSP object [RFC8231] are
already allocated, there is a need to have an extended flag in the form of a
TLV. The response for WGLC was timid mostly because the need for this I-D is
well understood and agreed upon in the WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was a discussion on the use of variable length v/s fixed-length (32-bits)
by one WG participant. The discussion and rationale are captured in the
appendix of the I-D.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are various proposals in the WG that require new flags and as those get
traction, this extension would potentially be implemented soon.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The usual directorate reviews are enough. No additional reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes to all

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

No

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standards. This I-D adds a new TLV and thus standards track is
appropriate. The datatracker state is set correctly.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

During the WGLC and adoption, the IPR poll was conducted. There are no IPR
against this I-D.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes. There is only one author.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No issues found.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No state change of existing RFCs

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

IANA Considerations section is reviewed and no issues were found.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Now that all the 12 bits in the flag field of the LSP object [RFC8231] are
already allocated, there is a need to have an extended flag in the form of a
TLV. The response for WGLC was timid mostly because the need for this I-D is
well understood and agreed upon in the WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was a discussion on the use of variable length v/s fixed-length (32-bits)
by one WG participant. The discussion and rationale are captured in the
appendix of the I-D.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are various proposals in the WG that require new flags and as those get
traction, this extension would potentially be implemented soon.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The usual directorate reviews are enough. No additional reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes to all

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

No

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standards. This I-D adds a new TLV and thus standards track is
appropriate. The datatracker state is set correctly.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

During the WGLC and adoption, the IPR poll was conducted. There are no IPR
against this I-D.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes. There is only one author.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No issues found.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No state change of existing RFCs

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

IANA Considerations section is reviewed and no issues were found.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-06-07
03 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2022-06-07
03 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-03.txt
2022-06-07
03 Quan Xiong New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Quan Xiong)
2022-06-07
03 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-06-07
02 Dhruv Dhody Notification list changed to dd@dhruvdhody.com because the document shepherd was set
2022-06-07
02 Dhruv Dhody Document shepherd changed to Dhruv Dhody
2022-06-02
02 Dhruv Dhody IPR - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Nq2DftJNW5nFiM8woA09oU1jpKc/
2022-06-02
02 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2022-05-11
02 Dhruv Dhody IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-05-11
02 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-02.txt
2022-05-11
02 (System) New version approved
2022-05-11
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Quan Xiong
2022-05-11
02 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2022-04-21
01 (System) Document has expired
2021-10-18
01 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-01.txt
2021-10-18
01 (System) New version approved
2021-10-18
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Quan Xiong
2021-10-18
01 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision
2021-09-09
00 (System) Document has expired
2021-03-08
00 Dhruv Dhody This document now replaces draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag instead of None
2021-03-08
00 Quan Xiong New version available: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-00.txt
2021-03-08
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-03-08
00 Quan Xiong Set submitter to "Quan Xiong ", replaces to draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org
2021-03-08
00 Quan Xiong Uploaded new revision