Inter-AS Requirements for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP)
RFC 5376

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineered (MPLS TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established wholly within an Autonomous System (AS) or may cross AS boundaries.

The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a component that is capable of computing constrained paths for (G)MPLS TE LSPs. The PCE Communication Protocol (PCECP) is defined to allow communication between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs, as well as between PCEs. The PCECP is used to request constrained paths and to supply computed paths in response. Generic requirements for the PCECP are set out in "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657. This document extends those requirements to cover the use of PCECP in support of inter-AS MPLS TE. This memo provides information for the Internet community.')

Proto write-up for draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt

Intended status : Informational Track

> (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?

JP Vasseur is the document shepherd. Both co-chairs (JP Vasseur and Adrian
Farrel) have reviewed the document. They think that the document is ready to
be forwarded 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?


The document has been discussed and reviewed by several key WG members.
Further, Sandy Murphy from the Security Directorate made a thorough review
of the document
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg01393.html) and Adrian
Farrel has worked with the authors to address the comments.

> (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.

No specific concern about this document. The requirements expressed in this
document had a good support in the WG and complement the generic
requirements for the PCECP defined in RFC4657.

There was no filed IPR disclosure related to this document.

> (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?

Good consensus. No concern or additional comments received during WG Last
Call.

> (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?

The Document has been checked.

> (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 document makes no requests for IANA action

> (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 formal language is used.

> (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.

[RFC4216] defines the scenarios motivating the deployment of inter-AS
  Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE) and
  specifies the requirements for inter-AS MPLS TE when the ASes are
  under the administration of one Service Provider (SP) or the
  administration of different SPs.

  Three signaling options are defined for setting up an inter-AS TE
  LSP:
      1) contiguous TE LSP as documented in [RFC5151];
      2) stitched inter-AS TE LSP discussed in [RFC5150];
      3) nested TE LSP as in [RFC4206].

  [RFC5152] defines mechanisms for the computation of inter-domain TE
  Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using network elements along the
  signaling paths to compute per-domain constrained path segments. The
  mechanisms in [RFC5152] do not guarantee an optimum constrained path
  across multiple ASes where an optimum path for an TE LSP is one that
  has the smallest cost, according to a normalized TE metric (based
  upon a TE metric or Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) metric adopted
  in each transit AS) among all possible paths that satisfy the LSP TE
  constraints.

  The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] is a component that is
  capable of computing paths for MPLS TE and Generalized Multiprotcol
  Label Switching Protocol ((G)MPLS TE) LSPs. The requirements for a
  PCE have come from SP demands to compute optimum constrained paths
  across multiple areas and/or domains, and to be able to separate the
  path computation elements from the forwarding elements.

  The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is defined to allow
  communication between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs, and
  between PCEs. The PCEP is used to request (G)MPLS TE paths and to
  supply computed paths in response. Generic requirements for the
  PCEP are discussed in [RFC4657]. This document provides a set of
  PCEP requirements that are specific to inter-AS (G)MPLS TE path
  computation.

>        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?

The PCE WG has good consensus with no disagreement.


>        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?

draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt is a requirement document.