Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-01

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.

I see the concern listed in the security considerations section for possible abuse on the size of PCEP messages and this addition helping with more opportunities for bloat.  The security considerations section points to authentication and integrity to protect against this, but normally that would be coding practices (limits to size/length of fields, etc.).  I noticed the SecDir review had a similar observation.  Is there a reason that can't be done?  Are there are limits for the defined object type that can help?

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05331.html

Thanks,
Kathleen

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.

I see the concern listed int he security considerations section for possible abuse on the size of PCEP messages and this addition helping with more bloat.  The security considerations section points to authentication and integrity to protect against this, but normally that would be coding practices (limits to size/length of fields, etc.).  I noticed the SecDir review had a similar observation.  Is there a reason that can't be done?  Are there are limits for the defined object type that can help?

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05331.html

Thanks,
Kathleen

[Ballot comment]
As explained in the write-up: "A diff allows to quickly spot the new text."
A new section called "Differences from RFC 7150", with your text below, and a table of content to highlight this section is a very good practice IMO.

  This document obsoletes RFC 7150 making two changes to that document:
  - Clarification that the TLV is available for use in any PCEP object
    (existing or future) that supports TLVs.
  - The allocation of a different code point for the VENDOR-INFORMATION
    object.  This change became necessary because of an inadvertant
    clash with codepoints used in another Internet-Draft that had been
    deployed without IANA allocation.  The PCE working group has
    conducted a survey of implementations and deployments of RFC 7150
    and considers that this change is safe and does not harm early
    implementers of RFC 7150.

[Ballot comment]
It's a little hard to gather the context here just from reading the document and the shepherd write-up, so apologies if this is an obvious question: is there a plan in place to get the object-class value 32 registered? If not, what is to prevent the same scenario from arising again once 32 is unassigned, other than general knowledge among WG participants that 32 is in use but has not been registered?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-01.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

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

First, in the PCEP Objects subregistry of the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry located at:

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

the entry for Object-Class Value 32 and all sub-Object-Types, defined in [ RFC7150 ], are to be removed and marked "unassigned" with a reference to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

32 VENDOR-INFORMATION
    0: Unassigned
    1: Vendor-Specific Constraints [RFC7150]
    2-255: Unassigned

NEW:
32 Unassigned      [ RFC-to-be ]


Second, also in the PCEP Objects subregistry of the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry located at:

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

a new PCEP Object is to be registered as follows:

Object-Class Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: VENDOR-INFORMATION
Object Type:
0: Unassigned
1: Vendor-Specific Constraints Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
2-255: Unassigned
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have requested that the Object-Class Value of 34 be used for this registration.

Third, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators subregistry of the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry located at:

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

the reference for Value 7 (VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV) will be changed from [RFC7150] to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element communication Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG
(pce) to consider the following document:
- 'Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element
  communication Protocol'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-24. 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


  The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) is used to
  convey path computation requests and responses both between Path
  Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs) and
  between cooperating PCEs.  In PCEP, the path computation requests
  carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC
  wishes the PCE to apply in its computation.

  This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
  in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Value (TLV)
  that can be carried in any PCEP object that supports TLVs.

  This document obsoletes RFC 7150.  The only changes from that
  document are a clarification of the use of the new Type-Length-Value
  and the allocation of a different code point for the VENDOR-
  INFORMATION object.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis/ballot/


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

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)?
- Standard Track

Why is this the proper type of RFC?
- It defines codepoints in PCEP and obsoletes a ST RFC.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
- Yes

(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) is used to
  convey path computation requests and responses both between Path
  Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs) and
  between cooperating PCEs.  In PCEP, the path computation requests
  carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC
  wishes the PCE to apply in its computation.

  This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
  in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Value (TLV)
  that can be carried in any PCEP object that supports TLVs.

  This document obsoletes RFC 7150. The only changes from that
  document are a clarification of the use of the new Type-Length-Value
  and the allocation of a different code point for the VENDOR-
  INFORMATION object.

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?
- This bis versions became necessary because of an inadvertant
    clash with codepoints used in another Internet-Draft that had been
    deployed without IANA allocation.  The PCE working group has
    conducted a survey of implementations and deployments of RFC 7150
    and considers that this change is safe and does not harm early
    implementers of RFC 7150.

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?
- Some implementations claim to use the extensions defined in the I-D. The original RFC 7150 already passed IESG review.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?
- Julien Meuric

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
- Alia Atlas

(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.
- Simple update of a clear RFC. A diff allows to quickly spot the new text.

(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.
- No

(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.
- N/A

(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 (already checked before publication RFC 7150).

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

(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?
- Based on WG feedback, updating RFC 7150 seemed less impacting than modifying the implementations of colliding I-D. The consensus may thus leave some frustration for a few.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
- N/A

(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.
- Yes: RFC 7150 will be obsoleted

(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).
- Consistent with the added text: a codepoint value is released and a new one requested.

(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.
- N/A

(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.
- N/A