Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths and Virtual Networks
draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-01-26
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Nagendra Nainar Last Call OPSDIR review |
2024-01-26
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue |
2023-02-13
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2023-01-23
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2022-12-09
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2022-11-10
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2022-11-10
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2022-11-10
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2022-10-31
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2022-10-30
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tirumaleswar Reddy.K. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2022-10-25
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tirumaleswar Reddy.K. |
2022-10-24
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2022-10-24
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2022-10-24
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2022-10-24
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2022-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2022-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2022-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2022-10-24
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-10-24
|
11 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2022-10-24
|
11 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-11.txt |
2022-10-24
|
11 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-10-24
|
11 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-23
|
10 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-23
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-10-23
|
10 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-10.txt |
2022-10-23
|
10 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-10-23
|
10 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-20
|
09 | John Scudder | Hi Authors, I see you have some small outstanding edits to make to address IESG review comments from Lars Eggert, Erik Kline, and Roman Danyliw. … Hi Authors, I see you have some small outstanding edits to make to address IESG review comments from Lars Eggert, Erik Kline, and Roman Danyliw. Once you've posted a revision to take care of that, we will be done and I'll be able to send the document to the RFC Editor. :-) Thanks for all your work on the draft, --John |
2022-10-20
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Daniele Ceccarelli, Haomian Zheng, Young Lee (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-20
|
09 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2022-10-20
|
09 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2022-10-20
|
09 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2022-10-20
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09 CC @larseggert Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_z38ZSXAEkWf_mmmUAEO5JWCMFk). … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09 CC @larseggert Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_z38ZSXAEkWf_mmmUAEO5JWCMFk). ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Grammar/style #### Section 3, paragraph 9 ``` guration of VNAG IDs is not supported so there is no need for an Operator-Con ^^^ ``` Use a comma before "so" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2022-10-20
|
09 | Lars Eggert | Ballot comment text updated for Lars Eggert |
2022-10-20
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association- CC @larseggert Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_z38ZSXAEkWf_mmmUAEO5JWCMFk). … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association- CC @larseggert Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_z38ZSXAEkWf_mmmUAEO5JWCMFk). ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Grammar/style #### Section 3, paragraph 9 ``` guration of VNAG IDs is not supported so there is no need for an Operator-Con ^^^ ``` Use a comma before "so" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2022-10-20
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2022-10-19
|
09 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2022-10-19
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-10-18
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2022-10-17
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 4. The Virtual Network Identifier is a human-readable string that identifies a VN and can be specified with the association … [Ballot comment] ** Section 4. The Virtual Network Identifier is a human-readable string that identifies a VN and can be specified with the association information. Is this “associated information” conveyed with a VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV? If so, it would be clearer to say (something to the effect of): NEW The Virtual Network Identifier is a human-readable string that identifies a VN and can be specified with the association information conveyed in a VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV. |
2022-10-17
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-10-17
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2022-10-17
|
09 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2022-10-15
|
09 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09} CC @ekline ## Comments ### S4 * The format layout diagram, Figure 2, states that … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09} CC @ekline ## Comments ### S4 * The format layout diagram, Figure 2, states that Length is variable, as does the text that follows it, but the use of the "|" at the end of the first word implied to me that it was actually a 16-bit integer. Perhaps change the end of this line to just be "//" or something? Alternatively, if this field is actually a 16-bit integer then I suggest clarifying the text that says it's "variable". * Related: what should an implementation do if the length of the VN is zero? |
2022-10-15
|
09 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-10-13
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-10-20 |
2022-10-13
|
09 | John Scudder | Ballot has been issued |
2022-10-13
|
09 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-10-13
|
09 | John Scudder | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-10-13
|
09 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2022-10-13
|
09 | John Scudder | Ballot writeup was changed |
2022-10-13
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2022-10-12
|
09 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. Sent review to list. |
2022-10-11
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2022-10-11
|
09 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First, in the ASSOCIATION Type Field registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: VN Association Type Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, on the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ a single, new error type will be registered as follows: Error-Type: 6 Meaning: Mandatory Object missing Error-value=[ TBD-at-Registration ]: VIRTUAL-NETWORK TLV missing Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Specialist |
2022-10-11
|
09 | Geoff Huston | Closed request for Last Call review by DNSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Document': not DNS-related |
2022-10-11
|
09 | Peter van Dijk | Assignment of request for Last Call review by DNSDIR to Peter van Dijk was rejected |
2022-10-10
|
09 | Jim Reid | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Peter van Dijk |
2022-10-10
|
09 | Jim Reid | Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Peter van Dijk |
2022-10-06
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2022-10-06
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2022-10-06
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar |
2022-10-06
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar |
2022-09-29
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K |
2022-09-29
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K |
2022-09-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2022-09-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-13): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association@ietf.org, hari@netflix.com, jgs@juniper.net, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-13): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association@ietf.org, hari@netflix.com, jgs@juniper.net, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for establishing relationships between sets of Label Switched Paths and Virtual Networks) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for establishing relationships between sets of Label Switched Paths and Virtual Networks' 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-13. 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 This document describes how to extend the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) association mechanism introduced by the PCEP Association Group specification, to further associate sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with a higher-level structure such as a Virtual Network (VN) requested by a customer or application. This extended association mechanism can be used to facilitate control of virtual network using the PCE architecture. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3329/ |
2022-09-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2022-09-29
|
09 | John Scudder | Last call was requested |
2022-09-29
|
09 | John Scudder | Last call announcement was generated |
2022-09-29
|
09 | John Scudder | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-09-29
|
09 | John Scudder | Ballot writeup was generated |
2022-09-29
|
09 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-09-28
|
09 | Hariharan Ananthakrishnan | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of authors 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? Yes, we have broad agreement for this working group document. 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)? Existing implementation specified in the document. ### Additional Reviews 5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? N/A. 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. N/A. 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]? N/A. 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, updated and ready to progress. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Currently all strings in PCEP are ASCII instead of BCP 18, BCP 166. This was discussed briefly in the WG. The authors decided to keep ASCII with the idea that all string processing would be better to be handled together. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard. Why is this the proper type of RFC? It is a protocol extension Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. This document has an IPR disclosed (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3329/). IPR Poll email https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/?q=draft-ietf-pce-vn-association%20IPR%20Poll 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9] and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. Done 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? N/A. 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][10], [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them. N/A. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, 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. N/A. 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][12]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body. A new code point in an existing sub-registry will be allocated before publication. 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. N/A. [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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78 [8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html |
2022-09-28
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-28
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-09-28
|
09 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09.txt |
2022-09-28
|
09 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-09-28
|
09 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-26
|
08 | John Scudder | See AD review sent to WG mailing list. |
2022-09-26
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Scudder, Daniele Ceccarelli, Haomian Zheng, Young Lee (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-26
|
08 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2022-09-21
|
08 | Hariharan Ananthakrishnan | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of authors 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? Yes, we have broad agreement for this working group document. 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)? Existing implementation specified in the document. ### Additional Reviews 5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? N/A. 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. N/A. 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]? N/A. 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, updated and ready to progress. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? N/A. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard. Why is this the proper type of RFC? It is a protocol extension Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. This document has an IPR disclosed (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3329/). IPR Poll email https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/?q=draft-ietf-pce-vn-association%20IPR%20Poll 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9] and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. Done 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? N/A. 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][10], [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them. N/A. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, 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. N/A. 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][12]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body. A new code point in an existing sub-registry will be allocated before publication. 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. N/A. [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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78 [8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html |
2022-09-20
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-20
|
08 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2022-09-11
|
08 | He Jia | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: He Jia. Sent review to list. |
2022-08-17
|
08 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2022-08-17
|
08 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2022-08-17
|
08 | John Scudder | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2022-05-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of authors 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? Yes, we have broad agreement for this working group document. 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)? Existing implementation specified in the document. ### Additional Reviews 5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? N/A. 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. N/A. 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]? N/A. 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, updated and ready to progress. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? N/A. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. This document has an IPR disclosed (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3329/). IPR Poll email https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/?q=draft-ietf-pce-vn-association%20IPR%20Poll 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9] and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. A reference to a living I-D will need to be kept to the latest version. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? N/A. 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][10], [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them. N/A. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, 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. N/A. 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][12]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body. A new code point in an existing sub-registry will be allocated before publication. 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. N/A. [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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78 [8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html |
2022-05-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2022-05-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-05-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-05-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-05-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-05-23
|
08 | Dhruv Dhody | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-05-13
|
08 | Hariharan Ananthakrishnan | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of authors 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? Yes, we have broad agreement for this working group document. 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)? Existing implementation specified in the document. ### Additional Reviews 5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? N/A. 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. N/A. 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]? N/A. 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, updated and ready to progress. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? N/A. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. This document has an IPR disclosed (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3329/). IPR Poll email https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/?q=draft-ietf-pce-vn-association%20IPR%20Poll 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9] and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. A reference to a living I-D will need to be kept to the latest version. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? N/A. 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][10], [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them. N/A. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, 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. N/A. 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][12]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body. A new code point in an existing sub-registry will be allocated before publication. 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. N/A. [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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78 [8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html |
2022-05-12
|
08 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-08.txt |
2022-05-12
|
08 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-05-12
|
08 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-11
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2022-05-11
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2022-05-10
|
07 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-07.txt |
2022-05-10
|
07 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-05-10
|
07 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-15
|
06 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-06.txt |
2022-04-15
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-04-15
|
06 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-18
|
05 | Julien Meuric | Notification list changed to hari@netflix.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-03-18
|
05 | Julien Meuric | Document shepherd changed to Hariharan Ananthakrishnan |
2022-03-18
|
05 | Julien Meuric | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2022-03-18
|
05 | Julien Meuric | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2022-02-22
|
05 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2021-10-15
|
05 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05.txt |
2021-10-15
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2021-10-15
|
05 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-16
|
04 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-04.txt |
2021-04-16
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-04-16
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Haomian Zheng , Young Lee |
2021-04-16
|
04 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-18
|
03 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-03.txt |
2020-10-18
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-18
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , Young Lee , Daniele Ceccarelli |
2020-10-18
|
03 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-18
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-04-16
|
02 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-02.txt |
2020-04-16
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-16
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Daniele Ceccarelli , Haomian Zheng |
2020-04-16
|
02 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-27
|
01 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-01.txt |
2019-10-27
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-27
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Xian Zhang , Daniele Ceccarelli , pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-10-27
|
01 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-21
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | This document now replaces draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association instead of None |
2019-08-21
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-00.txt |
2019-08-21
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-08-21
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | Set submitter to "dhruv dhody ", replaces to draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-08-21
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |