Skip to main content

Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts
draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2010-11-19
11 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2010-11-18
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-11-18
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-11-18
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-11-18
11 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2010-11-18
11 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-11-18
11 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2010-11-18
11 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup text changed
2010-10-18
11 Stewart Bryant State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Stewart Bryant
2010-10-08
11 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-10-07
2010-10-07
11 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-07
11 Cindy Morgan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-06
11 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-10-06
11 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-10-06
11 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-10-06
11 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-10-06
11 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-10-05
11 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-10-05
11 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-10-04
11 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-10-03
11 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-10-02
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-09-27
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-11.txt
2010-09-19
11 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2010-09-19
11 Stewart Bryant Ballot has been issued by Stewart Bryant
2010-09-19
11 Stewart Bryant Created "Approve" ballot
2010-09-15
11 Stewart Bryant Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-10-07 by Stewart Bryant
2010-09-15
11 Stewart Bryant State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Stewart Bryant
2010-08-05
11 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-07-30
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew
2010-07-30
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew
2010-07-22
11 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

We understand that this document does not require anything from IANA.
2010-07-22
11 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-07-22
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2010-07-21
11 Stewart Bryant State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Stewart Bryant
2010-07-21
11 Stewart Bryant Last Call was requested by Stewart Bryant
2010-07-21
11 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-07-21
11 (System) Last call text was added
2010-07-21
11 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-07-14
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-07-14
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-10.txt
2010-07-13
11 Stewart Bryant State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Stewart Bryant
2010-07-12
11 Stewart Bryant State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Stewart Bryant
2010-07-12
11 Stewart Bryant [Note]: 'Julien Meuric (julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Stewart Bryant
2010-06-10
11 Adrian Farrel Responsible AD set to Stewart Bryant as Adrian Farrel is the document editor.
2010-06-10
11 Adrian Farrel Responsible AD has been changed to Stewart Bryant from Adrian Farrel
2010-06-09
11 Cindy Morgan
> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Julien Meuric
> Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> …
> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
Julien Meuric
> Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Yes
> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members?
Yes. (RFC 5706 from OPSAWG can be seen as a superset of this draft.)
> Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?
No concerns.
> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
> e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
> AAA, internationalization or XML?
No concerns (historic status).
> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
> or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
> has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
> event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
> that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.
No concerns.
> Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> this issue.
No IPR.
> (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
> others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
> agree with it?
WG supports historic status (the draft has been used by other documents).
> (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 known conflict.
> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See theInternet-Drafts Checklist
> andhttp://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Yes.
> Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
Yes.
> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative?
Yes
> Are there normative references to documents that
> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
> state?
No.
> 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].
N/A.
> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document?
IANA section is consistent.
> 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 [RFC5226].
N/A.
> 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?
Not needed.
> (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?
N/A.
> (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

It has often been the case that manageability considerations have
been retrofitted to protocols after they have been specified,
standardized, implemented, or deployed. This is sub-optimal.
Similarly, new protocols or protocol extensions are frequently
designed without due consideration of manageability requirements.

The Operations Area has developed "Guidelines for Considering
Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions"
(RFC 5706), and those guidelines have been adopted by the PCE Working
Group.

Previously, the PCE Working Group used the recommendations contained
in this document to guide authors of Internet-Drafts on the contents
of "Manageability Considerations" sections in their work. This
document is retained for historic reference.
> Working Group Summary
WG consensus to publish as historic RFC and move towards RFC 5706.
> Document Quality
No protocol extensions but the initiative has resulted in RFC 5706.
>
2010-06-09
11 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2010-06-09
11 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Julien Meuric (julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-04-01
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-09.txt
2010-02-26
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-08.txt
2009-07-27
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-07.txt
2009-01-04
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-06.txt
2008-10-15
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-05.txt
2008-06-20
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-04.txt
2008-02-19
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-03.txt
2007-08-31
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt
2007-03-01
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-01.txt
2007-01-23
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-00.txt