Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Color
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color and RFC 9863, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
I find it a bit odd that the error codes are only mentioned in the IANA Considerations sections and no where else (eg LSP-ERROR-CODE and PCEP-Error). Is there no text describing error handling where this would be appropriately documented ?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document.

About 5.2. Information and Data Models, if there is already an applicable YANG data model, then please add a reference, else suggest removing this section.

Suggest using a normative reference to all the IANA registries used to clear any ambiguities, e.g., for "STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" add a reference to https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#stateful-pce-capability-tlv-flag-field

[Ballot comment]
** Section 3.2

  Type has the value 67.  Length carries a value of 4.  The 'color'
  field is 4-bytes long, and carries the actual color value.

Is the 'color' value here interpreted as an unsigned 4-byte (32-bit value)?

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09.txt

# This draft is a short and nice read. Thank you for the work in this document. I did suggest few editorial edits.

# Many thanks to Ron Bonica for the RTGDIR Review.

# The OPSDIR review from Adrian Farrel was rather extensive, and i would like to see those discussed further by the authors

# In this review you find some non-blocking comments.

# Detailed Review
# ===============

18   Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a

GV> I assume this is an unsigned integer value, however a numerical could be for example unsigned, signed or floating point. can this be specific?

20   (e.g., low latency).  This document specifies extensions to Path
21   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.

GV> one color attribute, or possible multiple color attributes?

78   A Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or Segment Routing (SR) policy can
79   be associated with an intent or objective (e.g., low latency) by

GV> For accuracy, please add references to what exactly is a TE tunnel or a SR policy at first usage?

78   A Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or Segment Routing (SR) policy can
79   be associated with an intent or objective (e.g., low latency) by
80   tagging it with a color.  This color attribute is used as a guiding
81   criterion for mapping services onto the TE tunnel ([RFC9012]) or SR
82   policy ([RFC9256]).  The term color used in this document is not to
83   be interpreted as the 'thread color' specified in [RFC3063] or the
84   'resource color' (or 'link color') specified in [RFC3630], [RFC5329],
85   [RFC5305] and [RFC7308].

GV>

"
A Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel ([RFC9012]) or Segment Routing (SR) policy ([RFC9256]) can be associated with a specific intent or objective (e.g., low latency) by assigning it a color. This color attribute serves as a guiding criterion for mapping services onto the TE tunnel or SR policy.

The term color, as used in this document, must not be interpreted as referring to the "thread color" specified in [RFC3063] or the "resource color" (also referred to as "link color") as defined in [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and [RFC7308].
"

97   This document introduces extensions to PCEP to carry the color
98   attribute tagged with TE paths that are set up using RSVP-TE
99   ([RFC8408]) or Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]) or any other path
100   setup type supported under the stateful PCE model.  The only
101   exception where the extensions defined in this document are not used
102   for carrying the color attribute is when an SR path is set up using
103   the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp].
104   For these SR paths, the associated color is already included as part
105   of the SR policy identifier encoding.

GV>

"
This document defines extensions to the PCEP to carry the color attribute associated with TE paths that are established using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]), Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]), or any other path setup type supported under the stateful PCE model.

The only exception where the extensions defined in this document MUST NOT be used to carry the color attribute is for SR paths established using the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. For these SR paths, the associated color is already included as part of the SR policy identifier encoding.
"

107   The mechanism used at the PCC for appropriately mapping services onto
108   a TE path that is tagged with a color attribute is outside the scope
109   of this document.

GV>

"
The mechanism employed by the PCC for mapping services onto a TE path associated with a color attribute is outside the scope of this document.
"

127   In PCRpt, PCUpd, and PCInitiate messages, the LSP object ([RFC8231],
128   [RFC8281]) is a mandatory inclusion and is used to carry information
129   specific to the target LSP.  A TLV called the Color TLV (see
130   Section 3.2), which MAY be carried in the LSP object, is introduced
131   in this document to carry the color attribute associated with the
132   LSP.

GV> For an accurate understanding, mention that there either can be a single attribute or multiple? if only a single is allowed, then what is the error handling and what should happen if the sender does send multiple color attributes?

154   same Path Protection Association Group, it MUST reject the message
155   carrying the inconsistent color and send a PCErr message with Error-
156   type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value=TB2 (Inconsistent color).

GV> I suspect that s/TB2/TBD2/ so that the IANA section corresponds

Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde
Routing Area Director

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09.txt

# This draft is a short and nice read. Thank you for the work in this document. I did suggest few editorial edits.

# Many thanks to Ron Bonica for the RTGDIR Review.

# The OPSDIR review from Adrian Farrel was rather extensive, and i would like to see those discussed further by the authors

# In this review you find some non-blocking comments.

# General Review
# ==============

##

# Detailed Review
# ===============

18   Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a

GV> I assume this is an unsigned integer value, however a numerical could be for example unsigned, signed or floating point. can this be specific?

20   (e.g., low latency).  This document specifies extensions to Path
21   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.

GV> one color attribute, or possible multiple color attributes?

78   A Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or Segment Routing (SR) policy can
79   be associated with an intent or objective (e.g., low latency) by

GV> For accuracy, please add references to what exactly is a TE tunnel or a SR policy at first usage?

78   A Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or Segment Routing (SR) policy can
79   be associated with an intent or objective (e.g., low latency) by
80   tagging it with a color.  This color attribute is used as a guiding
81   criterion for mapping services onto the TE tunnel ([RFC9012]) or SR
82   policy ([RFC9256]).  The term color used in this document is not to
83   be interpreted as the 'thread color' specified in [RFC3063] or the
84   'resource color' (or 'link color') specified in [RFC3630], [RFC5329],
85   [RFC5305] and [RFC7308].

GV>

"
A Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel ([RFC9012]) or Segment Routing (SR) policy ([RFC9256]) can be associated with a specific intent or objective (e.g., low latency) by assigning it a color. This color attribute serves as a guiding criterion for mapping services onto the TE tunnel or SR policy.

The term color, as used in this document, must not be interpreted as referring to the "thread color" specified in [RFC3063] or the "resource color" (also referred to as "link color") as defined in [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and [RFC7308].
"

97   This document introduces extensions to PCEP to carry the color
98   attribute tagged with TE paths that are set up using RSVP-TE
99   ([RFC8408]) or Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]) or any other path
100   setup type supported under the stateful PCE model.  The only
101   exception where the extensions defined in this document are not used
102   for carrying the color attribute is when an SR path is set up using
103   the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp].
104   For these SR paths, the associated color is already included as part
105   of the SR policy identifier encoding.

GV>

"
This document defines extensions to the PCEP to carry the color attribute associated with TE paths that are established using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]), Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]), or any other path setup type supported under the stateful PCE model.

The only exception where the extensions defined in this document MUST NOT be used to carry the color attribute is for SR paths established using the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. For these SR paths, the associated color is already included as part of the SR policy identifier encoding.
"

107   The mechanism used at the PCC for appropriately mapping services onto
108   a TE path that is tagged with a color attribute is outside the scope
109   of this document.

GV>

"
The mechanism employed by the PCC for mapping services onto a TE path associated with a color attribute is outside the scope of this document.
"

127   In PCRpt, PCUpd, and PCInitiate messages, the LSP object ([RFC8231],
128   [RFC8281]) is a mandatory inclusion and is used to carry information
129   specific to the target LSP.  A TLV called the Color TLV (see
130   Section 3.2), which MAY be carried in the LSP object, is introduced
131   in this document to carry the color attribute associated with the
132   LSP.

GV> For an accurate understanding, mention that there either can be a single attribute or multiple? if only a single is allowed, then what is the error handling and what should happen if the sender does send multiple color attributes?

154   same Path Protection Association Group, it MUST reject the message
155   carrying the inconsistent color and send a PCErr message with Error-
156   type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value=TB2 (Inconsistent color).

GV> I suspect that s/TB2/TBD2/ so that the IANA section corresponds

Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde
Routing Area Director

[Ballot discuss]
"Abstract", paragraph 0
>    Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a
>    Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective
>    (e.g., low latency).  This document specifies extensions to Path
>    Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.


Thanks first of all to Adrian for doing the OPSDIR review. As John mentions in his response to the review, Adrian's comments are substantive and they should be acknowledged and addressed. The authors have responded, but I would like to see that discussion reach a conclusion. For that reason, I am holding a DISCUSS on the document.

Specifically, there was a comment from Adrian about the Manageability Considerations section. The authors have promised to bring it in after a discussion. However, that section does not appear in version -09 of the document, the version I am reviewing.

[Ballot comment]
Moving this COMMENT here and to clarify that the following is a non-blocking COMMENT.

I was also piqued by the comment from the authors that "Given that the document has reached this stage, it is safe to assume that there was consensus in the WG to use this TLV. AFAIK there was no discussion or debate during the WG process on whether the draft could have used an alternative encoding mechanism." If the discussion never happened, how can we claim that there was consensus in the WG?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Section 1, paragraph 2
> ibute tagged with TE paths that are setup using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]) or Segmen
>                                    ^^^^^
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

Section 1, paragraph 2
> lor attribute is when an SR path is setup using the extensions defined in [I-
>                                    ^^^^^
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### Abstract

* "a 32-bit numerical attribute" -> "a non-zero 32-bit numerical attribute"

  vis. RFC 9256 S2.1, or perhaps that doesn't apply here?

### S2, S3.2, or thereabouts

* How should a color value of zero be handled?

[Ballot discuss]
"Abstract", paragraph 0
>    Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a
>    Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective
>    (e.g., low latency).  This document specifies extensions to Path
>    Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.


Thanks first of all to Adrian for doing the OPSDIR review. As John mentions in his response to the review, Adrian's comments are substantive and they should be acknowledged and addressed. The authors have responded, but I would like to see that discussion reach a conclusion. For that reason, I am holding a DISCUSS on the document.

Specifically, there was a comment from Adrian about the Manageability Considerations section. The authors have promised to bring it in after a discussion. However, that section does not appear in version -09 of the document, the version I am reviewing.

I was also piqued by the comment from the authors that "Given that the document has reached this stage, it is safe to assume that there was consensus in the WG to use this TLV. AFAIK there was no discussion or debate during the WG process on whether the draft could have used an alternative encoding mechanism." If the discussion never happened, how can we claim that there was consensus in the WG?

[Ballot comment]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Section 1, paragraph 2
> ibute tagged with TE paths that are setup using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]) or Segmen
>                                    ^^^^^
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

Section 1, paragraph 2
> lor attribute is when an SR path is setup using the extensions defined in [I-
>                                    ^^^^^
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

I've set the substate to "revised i-d needed". It was the closest substate available to what is really needed, which is to respond to Adrian's review at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/ds2DI9SPMbba1HGKEmBzFRIwAKg/. The response might, or might not, include a revised i-d (I'd guess one is needed, but I don't want to prejudge the outcome).

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

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

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

the existing TEMPORARY registration for:

Value: 67
Description: Color

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field registry also in the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry group located at:

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

the existing TEMPORARY registration for:

Value: 20
Description: COLOR-CAPABILITY

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Third, in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry also in the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry group located at:

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

two new Error-values are to be registered for Error-type 19 (Invalid Operation) as follows:

Error-Type Meaning Error-value Reference
----------+--------+-----------+-----------
19 Invalid Operation [ TBD-at-Registration ]: Invalid Color [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ]: Inconsistent Color [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field registry also in the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry group located at:

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

the existing TEMPORARY registration for

Value: 9
Meaning: Unsupported Color

will be marked DEPRECATED and have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand 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 Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-02-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andrew.stone@nokia.com, dd@dhruvdhody.com, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Path Computation Element Protocol(PCEP) Extension for Color) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Path Computation Element Protocol(PCEP)
Extension for Color'
  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 2025-02-07. 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


  Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a
  Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective
  (e.g., low latency).  This document specifies extensions to Path
  Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.




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


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5859/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

-> During WG adoption[S1], there was broad agreement in the WG. A similar consensus was reached
during the WGLC[S2] with a similar volume of individuals from different company origins. In general, the PCE WG tends to have a handful of engagements
and the responses were proportional to past documents indicating general broad agreement. Questions, comments and suggestions
were handled by the authors in consensus with the WG.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

-> The document did not introduce any controversial topics or discussions. Discussions were generally
in the form of document scoping and grammatical definitions such as those found in [S3] and [S4]

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.)

-> There has been not appeal threat or any discontent amongst WG members. Comments and questions were addressed by the authors.

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)?

-> PCE WG documents require an implementation status section on its adopted documents. At the time of shepherd writeup the -05 version of
the draft section 6 - implementation status indicates: "At the time of publication of this version,
there are no known implementations.  Juniper Networks has plans to implement the extensions defined in this document." [S5]


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

-> The document introduces a small extension to PCEP to allow encoding a color value in any PCEP tunnel,
for the purpose of traffic steering via tunnel color mapping. This technical definition and use of the term color is already
inherited in another PCE WG document [S6], and this document opens its use in other tunnels with different path setup types. 
While the technology interactions touch upon those covered by IDR and TEAS WG, the document would likely not benefit
from their review as the technology use in PCEP and tunnels in PCEP is already well understood and confirmed within PCEP.

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.

-> Not applicable

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]?

-> Not applicable

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.

-> Not applicable

## 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, it is my opinion the document is needed as there are scenarios where it is useful to apply the
concept of color steering to 'classical' LSP Tunnels which are not SR Policies, such as RSVP-TE LSPs.
The document is clearly written on how and where to encode the color attribute as well as why.
It is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

-> No identified issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

-> The publication is requesting Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it defines
extensions to the PCE protocol object encoding with well-understood use cases and design considerations.
Yes, the datatracker state reflects this correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

-> Yes, IPR requests were issued pre-adoption[S7] and during WGLC[S8]. An author of the document
has also come forward with an IPR publication[S9][S10].   

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

-> Yes. The authors and contributors list has remained consistent through the versions of the document.
The original draft contained 6 authors, but the editors have correctly reduced the author list to 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

-> There is currently no I-D nits in the document. Evaluating the document as per [15] nits have not been found.
The abstract does contain a word count of 41 which is below the guidelines, however, the shepherd believes
the abstract concisely and accurately captures the function of the document.

-> Note, at the time of writing Shepherd writeup IANA indicates the early allocated codepoints expire 2024-10-30 however, RTG AD has already approved
renewal and IANA registry pending refresh.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

-> The normative and informative references are appropriate.

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

-> not applicable, all references are RFCs

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

-> no, all normative references are stable RFCs   

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, 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, the document is in isolation with nothing depending on it and does not update any 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][11]).

-> Early allocations have been made including one which is now marked deprecated(LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV) following discussion with authors, chairs, AD, and IANA for best way to proceed with removal of a no longer requested code point, and the current version of the document (-06) correctly specifies this deprecation as directed by the chairs.
-> The document does indicate new TBD codepoints which have not yet been allocated. However, no new registries are used.

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.

-> there are no new registries, and the existing registries extended upon do not request expert review.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



[S1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LPXPNmImPIMMnSg9PScRSmY4jnc/
[S2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/
[S3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TlZatUYlynikhwioOgogzdYW4KA/
[S4]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/
[S5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05#section-6
[S6]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26
[S7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TVCeFJk5aptqb0qaTPB2UMpi-C8/
[S8]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/MxAe9jG9nTnrBkKNaUCa9i18yig/
[S9]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/j9-hjy9MWfdRqH4Qfy9dwpfFVCY/
[S10]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5859/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

-> During WG adoption[S1], there was broad agreement in the WG. A similar consensus was reached
during the WGLC[S2] with a similar volume of individuals from different company origins. In general, the PCE WG tends to have a handful of engagements
and the responses were proportional to past documents indicating general broad agreement. Questions, comments and suggestions
were handled by the authors in consensus with the WG.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

-> The document did not introduce any controversial topics or discussions. Discussions were generally
in the form of document scoping and grammatical definitions such as those found in [S3] and [S4]

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.)

-> There has been not appeal threat or any discontent amongst WG members. Comments and questions were addressed by the authors.

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)?

-> PCE WG documents require an implementation status section on its adopted documents. At the time of shepherd writeup the -05 version of
the draft section 6 - implementation status indicates: "At the time of publication of this version,
there are no known implementations.  Juniper Networks has plans to implement the extensions defined in this document." [S5]


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

-> The document introduces a small extension to PCEP to allow encoding a color value in any PCEP tunnel,
for the purpose of traffic steering via tunnel color mapping. This technical definition and use of the term color is already
inherited in another PCE WG document [S6], and this document opens its use in other tunnels with different path setup types. 
While the technology interactions touch upon those covered by IDR and TEAS WG, the document would likely not benefit
from their review as the technology use in PCEP and tunnels in PCEP is already well understood and confirmed within PCEP.

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.

-> Not applicable

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]?

-> Not applicable

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.

-> Not applicable

## 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, it is my opinion the document is needed as there are scenarios where it is useful to apply the
concept of color steering to 'classical' LSP Tunnels which are not SR Policies, such as RSVP-TE LSPs.
The document is clearly written on how and where to encode the color attribute as well as why.
It is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

-> No identified issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

-> The publication is requesting Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it defines
extensions to the PCE protocol object encoding with well-understood use cases and design considerations.
Yes, the datatracker state reflects this correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

-> Yes, IPR requests were issued pre-adoption[S7] and during WGLC[S8]. An author of the document
has also come forward with an IPR publication[S9][S10].   

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

-> Yes. The authors and contributors list has remained consistent through the versions of the document.
The original draft contained 6 authors, but the editors have correctly reduced the author list to 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

-> There is currently no I-D nits in the document. Evaluating the document as per [15] nits have not been found.
The abstract does contain a word count of 41 which is below the guidelines, however, the shepherd believes
the abstract concisely and accurately captures the function of the document.

-> Note, at the time of writing Shepherd writeup IANA indicates the early allocated codepoints expire 2024-10-30 however, RTG AD has already approved
renewal and IANA registry pending refresh.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

-> The normative and informative references are appropriate.

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

-> not applicable, all references are RFCs

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

-> no, all normative references are stable RFCs   

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, 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, the document is in isolation with nothing depending on it and does not update any 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][11]).

-> As mentioned above, at time of writing the IANA registry for early allocated values are past expiration
however AD has approved renewal of the code points [S11]
-> The document does indicate new TBD codepoints which have not yet been allocated. However, no new registries are used.
-> The document also has requested in version -05 that a previously early allocated codepoint value in the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field to be deleted.
The shepherd has sent an email to IANA thread discussing the renewal in case action needs to take place now.

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.

-> there are no new registries, and the existing registries extended upon do not request expert review.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



[S1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LPXPNmImPIMMnSg9PScRSmY4jnc/
[S2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/
[S3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TlZatUYlynikhwioOgogzdYW4KA/
[S4]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/
[S5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05#section-6
[S6]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26
[S7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TVCeFJk5aptqb0qaTPB2UMpi-C8/
[S8]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/MxAe9jG9nTnrBkKNaUCa9i18yig/
[S9]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/j9-hjy9MWfdRqH4Qfy9dwpfFVCY/
[S10]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5859/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

-> During WG adoption[S1], there was broad agreement in the WG. A similar consensus was reached
during the WGLC[S2] with a similar volume of individuals from different company origins. In general, the PCE WG tends to have a handful of engagements
and the responses were proportional to past documents indicating general broad agreement. Questions, comments and suggestions
were handled by the authors in consensus with the WG.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

-> The document did not introduce any controversial topics or discussions. Discussions were generally
in the form of document scoping and grammatical definitions such as those found in [S3] and [S4]

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.)

-> There has been not appeal threat or any discontent amongst WG members. Comments and questions were addressed by the authors.

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)?

-> PCE WG documents require an implementation status section on its adopted documents. At the time of shepherd writeup the -05 version of
the draft section 6 - implementation status indicates: "At the time of publication of this version,
there are no known implementations.  Juniper Networks has plans to implement the extensions defined in this document." [S5]


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

-> The document introduces a small extension to PCEP to allow encoding a color value in any PCEP tunnel,
for the purpose of traffic steering via tunnel color mapping. This technical definition and use of the term color is already
inherited in another PCE WG document [S6], and this document opens its use in other tunnels with different path setup types. 
While the technology interactions touch upon those covered by IDR and TEAS WG, the document would likely not benefit
from their review as the technology use in PCEP and tunnels in PCEP is already well understood and confirmed within PCEP.

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.

-> Not applicable

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]?

-> Not applicable

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.

-> Not applicable

## 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, it is my opinion the document is needed as there are scenarios where it is useful to apply the
concept of color steering to 'classical' LSP Tunnels which are not SR Policies, such as RSVP-TE LSPs.
The document is clearly written on how and where to encode the color attribute as well as why.
It is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

-> No identified issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

-> The publication is requesting Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it defines
extensions to the PCE protocol object encoding with well-understood use cases and design considerations.
Yes, the datatracker state reflects this correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

-> Yes, IPR requests were issued pre-adoption[S7] and during WGLC[S8]. An author of the document
has also come forward with an IPR publication[S9][S10].   

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

-> Yes. The authors and contributors list has remained consistent through the versions of the document.
The original draft contained 6 authors, but the editors have correctly reduced the author list to 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

-> There is currently no I-D nits in the document. Evaluating the document as per [15] nits have not been found.
The abstract does contain a word count of 41 which is below the guidelines, however, the shepherd believes
the abstract concisely and accurately captures the function of the document.

-> Note, at the time of writing Shepherd writeup IANA indicates the early allocated codepoints expire 2024-10-30 however, RTG AD has already approved
renewal and IANA registry pending refresh.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

-> The normative and informative references are appropriate.

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

-> not applicable, all references are RFCs

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

-> no, all normative references are stable RFCs   

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, 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, the document is in isolation with nothing depending on it and does not update any 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][11]).

-> As mentioned above, at time of writing the IANA registry for early allocated values are past expiration
however AD has approved renewal of the code points [S11]
-> The document does indicate new TBD codepoints which have not yet been allocated. However, no new registries are used.
-> The document also has requested in version -05 that a previously early allocated codepoint value in the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field to be deleted.
The shepherd has sent an email to IANA thread discussing the renewal in case action needs to take place now.

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.

-> there are no new registries, and the existing registries extended upon do not request expert review.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



[S1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LPXPNmImPIMMnSg9PScRSmY4jnc/
[S2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/
[S3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TlZatUYlynikhwioOgogzdYW4KA/
[S4]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/
[S5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05#section-6
[S6]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26
[S7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TVCeFJk5aptqb0qaTPB2UMpi-C8/
[S8]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/MxAe9jG9nTnrBkKNaUCa9i18yig/
[S9]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/j9-hjy9MWfdRqH4Qfy9dwpfFVCY/
[S10]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5859/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

-> During WG adoption[S1], there was broad agreement in the WG. A similar consensus was reached
during the WGLC[S2] with a similar volume of individuals from different company origins. In general, the PCE WG tends to have a handful of engagements
and the responses were proportional to past documents indicating general broad agreement. Questions, comments and suggestions
were handled by the authors in consensus with the WG.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

-> The document did not introduce any controversial topics or discussions. Discussions were generally
in the form of document scoping and grammatical definitions such as those found in [S3] and [S4]

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.)

-> There has been not appeal threat or any discontent amongst WG members. Comments and questions were addressed by the authors.

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)?

-> PCE WG documents require an implementation status section on its adopted documents. At the time of shepherd writeup the -05 version of
the draft section 6 - implementation status indicates: "At the time of publication of this version,
there are no known implementations.  Juniper Networks has plans to implement the extensions defined in this document." [S5]


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

-> The document introduces a small extension to PCEP to allow encoding a color value in any PCEP tunnel,
for the purpose of traffic steering via tunnel color mapping. This technical definition and use of the term color is already
inherited in another PCE WG document [S6], and this document opens its use in other tunnels with different path setup types. 
While the technology interactions touch upon those covered by IDR and TEAS WG, the document would likely not benefit
from their review as the technology use in PCEP and tunnels in PCEP is already well understood and confirmed within PCEP.

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.

-> Not applicable

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]?

-> Not applicable

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.

-> Not applicable

## 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, it is my opinion the document is needed as there are scenarios where it is useful to apply the
concept of color steering to 'classical' LSP Tunnels which are not SR Policies, such as RSVP-TE LSPs.
The document is clearly written on how and where to encode the color attribute as well as why.
It is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

-> No identified issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

-> The publication is requesting Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it defines
extensions to the PCE protocol object encoding with well-understood use cases and design considerations.
Yes, the datatracker state reflects this correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

-> Yes, IPR requests were issued pre-adoption[S7] and during WGLC[S8]. An author of the document
has also come forward with an IPR publication[S9][S10].   

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

-> Yes. The authors and contributors list has remained consistent through the versions of the document.
The original draft contained 6 authors, but the editors have correctly reduced the author list to 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

-> There is currently no I-D nits in the document. Evaluating the document as per [15] nits have not been found.
The abstract does contain a word count of 41 which is below the guidelines, however, the shepherd believes
the abstract concisely and accurately captures the function of the document.

-> Note, at the time of writing Shepherd writeup IANA indicates the early allocated codepoints expire 2024-10-30 however, RTG AD has already approved
renewal and IANA registry pending refresh.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

-> The normative and informative references are appropriate.

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

-> not applicable, all references are RFCs

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

-> no, all normative references are stable RFCs   

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, 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, the document is in isolation with nothing depending on it and does not update any 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][11]).

-> As mentioned above, at time of writing the IANA registry for early allocated values are past expiration
however AD has approved renewal of the code points [S11]
-> The document clearly defines and has reservations for basic type values in pre-existing registries clearly listed
-> The document also has requested in version -05 that a previously early allocated codepoint value in the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field to be deleted.
The shepherd has sent an email to IANA thread discussing the renewal in case action needs to take place now.

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.

-> there are no new registries, and the existing registries extended upon do not request expert review.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



[S1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LPXPNmImPIMMnSg9PScRSmY4jnc/
[S2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/
[S3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TlZatUYlynikhwioOgogzdYW4KA/
[S4]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/
[S5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05#section-6
[S6]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26
[S7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TVCeFJk5aptqb0qaTPB2UMpi-C8/
[S8]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/MxAe9jG9nTnrBkKNaUCa9i18yig/
[S9]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/j9-hjy9MWfdRqH4Qfy9dwpfFVCY/
[S10]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5859/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

-> During WG adoption[S1], there was broad agreement in the WG. A similar consensus was reached
during the WGLC[S2] with a similar volume of individuals from different company origins. In general, the PCE WG tends to have a handful of engagements
and the responses were proportional to past documents indicating general broad agreement. Questions, comments and suggestions
were handled by the authors in consensus with the WG.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

-> The document did not introduce any controversial topics or discussions. Discussions were generally
in the form of document scoping and grammatical definitions such as those found in [S3] and [S4]

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.)

-> There has been not appeal threat or any discontent amongst WG members. Comments and questions were addressed by the authors.

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)?

-> PCE WG documents require an implementation status section on its adopted documents. At the time of shepherd writeup the -05 version of
the draft section 6 - implementation status indicates: "At the time of publication of this version,
there are no known implementations.  Juniper Networks has plans to implement the extensions defined in this document." [S5]


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

-> The document introduces a small extension to PCEP to allow encoding a color value in any PCEP tunnel,
for the purpose of traffic steering via tunnel color mapping. This technical definition and use of the term color is already
inherited in another PCE WG document [S6], and this document opens its use in other tunnels with different path setup types. 
While the technology interactions touch upon those covered by IDR and TEAS WG, the document would likely not benefit
from their review as the technology use in PCEP and tunnels in PCEP is already well understood and confirmed within PCEP.

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.

-> Not applicable

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]?

-> Not applicable

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.

-> Not applicable

## 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, it is my opinion the document is needed as there are scenarios where it is useful to apply the
concept of color steering to 'classical' LSP Tunnels which are not SR Policies, such as RSVP-TE LSPs.
The document is clearly written on how and where to encode the color attribute as well as why.
It is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

-> No identified issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

-> The publication is requesting Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it defines
extensions to the PCE protocol object encoding with well-understood use cases and design considerations.
Yes, the datatracker state reflects this correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

-> Yes, IPR requests were issued pre-adoption[S7] and during WGLC[S8]. An author of the document
has also come forward with an IPR publication[S9][S10].   

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

-> Yes. The authors and contributors list has remained consistent through the versions of the document.
The original draft contained 6 authors, but the editors have correctly reduced the author list to 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

-> There is currently no I-D nits in the document. Evaluating the document as per [15] nits have not been found.
The abstract does contain a word count of 41 which is below the guidelines, however, the shepherd believes
the abstract concisely and accurately captures the function of the document.

-> Note, at the time of writing Shepherd writeup IANA indicates the early allocated codepoints expire 2024-10-30 however, RTG AD has already approved
renewal and IANA registry pending refresh.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

-> The normative and informative references are appropriate.

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

-> not applicable, all references are RFCs

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

-> no, all normative references are stable RFCs   

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, 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, the document is in isolation with nothing depending on it and does not update any 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][11]).

-> As mentioned above, at time of writing the IANA registry for early allocated values are past expiration
however AD has approved renewal of the code points [S11]
-> The document clearly defines and has reservations for basic type values in pre-existing registries clearly listed

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.

-> there are no new registries, and the existing registries extended upon do not request expert review.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/



[S1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LPXPNmImPIMMnSg9PScRSmY4jnc/
[S2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/
[S3]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TlZatUYlynikhwioOgogzdYW4KA/
[S4]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/
[S5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05#section-6
[S6]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26
[S7]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TVCeFJk5aptqb0qaTPB2UMpi-C8/
[S8]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/MxAe9jG9nTnrBkKNaUCa9i18yig/
[S9]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/j9-hjy9MWfdRqH4Qfy9dwpfFVCY/
[S10]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5859/

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balaji Rajagopalan , Gyan Mishra , Mike Koldychev , Quan Xiong , Shaofu Peng , Vishnu Beeram , pce-chairs@ietf.org