Shepherd writeup
rfc8253-18

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

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

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Proposed Standard - indicated in the title page header.
  This is the correct type as the draft proposes extensions
  to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP).


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines
   the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation
   Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs.
   This document describe the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to
   enhance PCEP security, hence the PCEPS acronym proposed for it.  The
   additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol
   supporting PCEP, and therefore they do not affect the flexibility and
   extensibility of PCEP.




Working Group Summary

  There has been no particular controversy and the consensus behind
  the document is good.


Document Quality

  The document is good. It has been reviewed outside of the PCE WG for
  the TLS mechanisms.


Personnel

  Cyril Margaria is the Document Shepherd.  Deborah Brungard is the
  Responsible Area Director.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  I reviewed the text around the time of working group last call and
  during a shepherd reviiew.
  In my opinion, the document is ready to be published.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No. 
  


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

 the usage of TLS and start TLS derives from existing RFCs
  (RFC6614 and rfc4513)?

An early security directorate review has been made (By David Mandelberg)


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  None.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes. 


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

  No. 


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  It has been carefully reviewed by a few interested individuals.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  Because the draft originates from before 10 November 2008, idnits reports
  the following warning.

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
     have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
     the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
     this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  However, the document states in its preamble:

     This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
     provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Thus my understanding is that the authors have granted the BCP78 rights
  to the IETF trust.


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

  N/A.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.


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

 No


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

   No.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  IANA actions are clearly specified, covering all protocol extensions.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  None.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  None.
Back