Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-09
> (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?
Publication is requested as a Standards Track RFC.
This is appropriate because the document defines extensions to a
protocol that is already published on the Standards Track. These
extensions are intended for implementation and deployment.
This is indicated in the header of the document.
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
> Technical Summary
The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an
appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
This document provides extensions required for Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) so as to enable the usage
of a statefulPCE capability in supporting P2MP TE LSPs.
> Working Group Summary
The working group process has been uneventful. The author team
comes from vendors and operators who ship and deploy P2MP
RSVP-TE and so have a very strong interest in these PCE
IANA Early code point allocation was made for the code points
needed by this work.
> Document Quality
This document received only moderate review during its time in
the working group. P2MP function is somewhat fringe, and so
only a small group of people worked on it. As a result, WG last
call was quiet.
The document shepherd (Adrian Farrel) and the out-going chair
(Jon Hardwick) made a detailed reviews that led to a number of
Implementation status is not known, but it is believed that
two vendors have roadmap plans.
Adrian Farrel (email@example.com) is the Document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the Responsible
> (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.
The Shepherd did a detailed line-by-line review and the authors
made appropriate updates. This revision is ready for publication.
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the
> depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Good enough. Could have used more, but it will do.
> (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. There are some parts that use RBNF. They are not normative,
but have had careful scrutiny from PCEP experts.
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
> Shepherd has with this document.
No such concerns.
> (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.
A poll was carried out on the mailing list and all authors
explicitly confirmed their compliance.
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this
> document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion
> regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR has been disclosed.
> (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?
General agreement that the work should be done, but light interest
in the details beyond the author team and reviewers. No dissent.
> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
> extreme discontent?
> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in
> this document.
Only problem is s/[This I-D]/[This.I-D]/
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal
> review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type,
> and URI type reviews.
No such requirements.
> (13) Have all references within this document been identified
> as either normative or informative?
> (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?
> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see
> RFC 3967)?
> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of
> any existing RFCs?
> (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
> 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).
Everything looks good.
A substantial set of early allocations were made in April 2018
and this publication request (with the IANA section) requests
IANA to confirm those assignments.
This document makes no requests to modify or remove any of the
early allocations, however, section 10.7 does request the
creation of a further registry. This is well defined.
> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review
> for future allocations.
> (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.
RBNF reviewed manually.