Extension for Stateful PCE to allow Optional Processing of PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-19
|
09 | Ron Bonica | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ron Bonica. Sent review to list. |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional *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? It represents a strong concurrence of a few with no objections from others. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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.) No 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)? The Implementation Status section says that there are no known implementations yet but some vendors are considering it. ## 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. No. 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. No. 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]? No 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. N/A ## 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? This document has been reviewed by the chair. The document is clear and ready to be shipped. 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? N/A 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? Proposed Standard This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus standards track makes sense. All attributes in Datatracker are set 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. There are no IPRs. Poll was conducted during adoption and WGLC. 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. 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.) None 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 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. None 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? N/A 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. This document updates RFC 8231, it is captured in the metadata and abstract. 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]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body and has been reviewed. 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. No need for Designated Expert [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/ |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-04-16
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional *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? It represents a strong concurrence of a few with no objections from others. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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.) No 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)? The Implementation Status section says that there are no known implementations yet but some vendors are considering it. ## 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. No. 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. No. 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]? No 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. N/A ## 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? This document has been reviewed by the chair. The document is clear and ready to be shipped. 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? N/A 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? Proposed Standard This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus standards track makes sense. All attributes in Datatracker are set 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. There are no IPRs. Poll was conducted during adoption and WGLC. 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. 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.) None 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 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. None 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? N/A 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. This document updates RFC 8231, it is captured in the metadata and abstract. 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]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body and has been reviewed. 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. No need for Designated Expert [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/ |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Cheng Li | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09.txt |
2024-04-16
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-16
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cheng Li , Haomian Zheng , Stephane Litkowski |
2024-04-16
|
09 | Cheng Li | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-10
|
08 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2024-04-09
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2024-04-09
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2024-04-09
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2024-03-17
|
08 | Cheng Li | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-08.txt |
2024-03-17
|
08 | Cheng Li | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cheng Li) |
2024-03-17
|
08 | Cheng Li | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-12
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Added to session: IETF-119: pce Tue-0530 |
2024-02-21
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Notification list changed to dd@dhruvdhody.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-02-21
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Document shepherd changed to Dhruv Dhody |
2024-02-21
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2024-01-02
|
07 | Cheng Li | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.txt |
2024-01-02
|
07 | Cheng Li | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cheng Li) |
2024-01-02
|
07 | Cheng Li | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-09
|
06 | Cheng Li | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-06.txt |
2023-07-09
|
06 | Haomian Zheng | New version approved |
2023-07-08
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cheng Li , Haomian Zheng , Stephane Litkowski |
2023-07-08
|
06 | Cheng Li | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-11
|
05 | Cheng Li | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-05.txt |
2023-01-11
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-01-11
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cheng Li , Haomian Zheng , Stephane Litkowski |
2023-01-11
|
05 | Cheng Li | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-11
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-07-10
|
04 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-04.txt |
2022-07-10
|
04 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-07-10
|
04 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-21
|
03 | Cheng Li | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-03.txt |
2022-04-21
|
03 | Cheng Li | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Cheng Li) |
2022-04-21
|
03 | Cheng Li | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-23
|
02 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-02.txt |
2021-10-23
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2021-10-23
|
02 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-23
|
01 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-01.txt |
2021-10-23
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2021-10-23
|
01 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-12
|
00 | Julien Meuric | This document now replaces draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional instead of None |
2021-10-12
|
00 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-00.txt |
2021-10-12
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-10-12
|
00 | Haomian Zheng | Set submitter to "Haomian Zheng ", replaces to draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-10-12
|
00 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |