Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework
draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp-04

[Ballot comment]
I am concerned of a number of things with this document. The main issue
is that it introduces a level of generality that I'm not sure is called
for and brings along with significant complexity. Policy can be applied
and fetched from either clients or servers. Policy can apply to actual
PC decisions, but also to selection of PCEs. The components necessary
to implement this architecture are going to be numerous. Does the
industry really need all this, or was the inclusion of all of these
options part of some compromise?

Also, I was earlier under the impression that COPS is dead, and as a
result it might not be such a good idea to build on it. Maybe that
is not the case?

[Ballot discuss]
It would be very helpful to put a listing of policy attributes that are under consideration in a section before the scenarios. The scenarios are very helpful as examples but, they are limited in their usefulness to understand what attributes and constraints are to be used to create policy. The doc is theoretical enough on the discussion of policy that it becomes unclear the actions that are to be taken.

There is also little discussion on the policy distribution mechanism when the PCC is separated from the PCE. It would seem an important part of the framework and some more text is required to understand what is necessary.

There are statements that COPS is not required but, it is referred to throughout the doc. If it is not required what is another technique that could be used, recommended or is going to be followed in the WG?

PROTO Write-up

> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?

This document has been reviewed by the PCE working group, although the
number of people in the working group with a deep understanding of
policy is limited.

In order to broaden the review, we sent the document to the IPSphere
forum who are more experienced in these matters. We received comments
back from two members and the document was updated accordingly.

> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
> e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
> AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
> or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
> has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
> event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
> that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> this issue.

The document is sound.

The working group chairs were not completely convinced that there was
a need for this document, but members of the working group were
supportive, and it is certainly true that policy is discussed within
the PCE architecture (RFC 4655) and is very applicable for inter-AS
PCE.

> (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?

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

When the I-D was accepted by the WG there was strong support.

> (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
> separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
> should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
> entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats. No discontent.

> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See
> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

All checks made.

> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? Are there normative references to documents that
> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
> state? If such normative references exist, what is the
> strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
> so, list these downward references to support the Area
> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References split.
No downrefs.

> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document? If the document specifies protocol
> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
> registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
> the document creates a new registry, does it define the
> proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
> procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
> document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
> can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This is an Informational I-D.
A null IANA section is present.

> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
> an automated checker?

No such sections.

> (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
> "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
> announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.

The Path Computation Element (PCE) Architecture (RFC 4655) introduces
the concept of policy in the context of path computation. This
document provides additional details on policy within the PCE
Architecture and also provides context for the support of PCE Policy.
This document introduces the use of the Policy Core Information Model
(PCIM) as a framework for supporting path computation policy. This
document also provides representative scenarios for the support of
PCE Policy.

> Working Group Summary
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?

Nothing of note.

> Document Quality
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
> review, on what date was the request posted?

This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications.
Expert policy review was provided by Christian Jacquenet from France
Telecom who is a participant in the IPSphere forum.