Skip to main content

Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
RFC 8306

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
04 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2019-02-06
04 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag)
2018-12-20
04 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.

This document describes extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs.

This document obsoletes RFC 6006.')
2017-11-30
04 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8306, changed abstract to 'Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8306, changed abstract to 'Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.', changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-11-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis and RFC 6006)
2017-11-30
04 (System) RFC published
2017-11-29
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8306">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2017-11-27
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8306">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2017-11-13
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2017-11-07
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2017-10-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-10-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2017-10-16
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2017-10-16
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-10-16
04 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-10-16
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-10-13
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-10-13
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-10-13
04 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-10-13
04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-10-13
04 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2017-10-13
04 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2017-09-26
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-09-26
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-09-26
04 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt
2017-09-26
04 (System) New version approved
2017-09-26
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Quintin Zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com>, Daniel King …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Quintin Zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com>, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
2017-09-26
04 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2017-09-26
03 Eric Rescorla [Ballot comment]
Revising position after offline discussion
2017-09-26
03 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2017-09-06
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Fred Baker.
2017-08-31
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman.
2017-08-31
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-08-31
03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I support EKR's discuss.  MD5 should be deprecated by now.
2017-08-31
03 Kathleen Moriarty Ballot comment text updated for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-30
03 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
* Appendix A:

Did you mean "responses" instead of "requests" in this sentence?

"Update to the reply message to allow for bundling of …
[Ballot comment]
* Appendix A:

Did you mean "responses" instead of "requests" in this sentence?

"Update to the reply message to allow for bundling of multiple
      path computation requests..."

* I agree with Benoit and Mirja that summarizing all the changes since RFC6006 would be useful (Thanks for doing this for the RBNF!)
2017-08-30
03 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-08-30
03 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-08-30
03 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot discuss]
The Security Considerations is worrisome, as it points to RFC 5440; Section 10.2, which basically recommends TCP-MD5:

  At the time of …
[Ballot discuss]
The Security Considerations is worrisome, as it points to RFC 5440; Section 10.2, which basically recommends TCP-MD5:

  At the time of writing, TCP-MD5 [RFC2385] is the only available
  security mechanism for securing the TCP connections that underly PCEP
  sessions.

  As explained in [RFC2385], the use of MD5 faces some limitations and
  does not provide as high a level of security as was once believed.  A
  PCEP implementation supporting TCP-MD5 SHOULD be designed so that
  stronger security keying techniques or algorithms that may be
  specified for TCP can be easily integrated in future releases.

  The TCP Authentication Option [TCP-AUTH] (TCP-AO) specifies new
  security procedures for TCP, but is not yet complete.  Since it is
  believed that [TCP-AUTH] will offer significantly improved security
  for applications using TCP, implementers should expect to update
  their implementation as soon as the TCP Authentication Option is
  published as an RFC.

  Implementations MUST support TCP-MD5 and should make the security
  function available as a configuration option.

TCP-AO has now been published as an RFC for quite some time, so it's
probably not really appropriate to just point to a document which recommends
TCP-MD5.
2017-08-30
03 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-08-30
03 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-08-30
03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-30
03 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
- Where is the "diff from RFC6006" section?
The following is not useful:

      This document obsoletes RFC 6006 and …
[Ballot comment]
- Where is the "diff from RFC6006" section?
The following is not useful:

      This document obsoletes RFC 6006 and incorporates all outstanding
      Errata:

      o Erratum with IDs: 3819, 3830, 3836, 4867, and 4868.

I found "Appendix A. Summary of the RBNF Changes from RFC 6006", as a good start, but it doesn't even appear in the table of content. Why?

- I've not been following the IPR situation (as described by Alvaro), but would like to understand and it should be discussed during the telechat.
Is it the case that https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1686/ (related to RFC6006) is updated by https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2983/ (related to RFC6006 and RFC6006bis)?
2017-08-30
03 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-08-29
03 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adam Roach has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2017-08-29
03 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
I have only reviewed the diffs from RFC6006 (Perhaps we should request tools support for bis document diffs):
<https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6006.txt&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03>

The instructions …
[Ballot comment]
I have only reviewed the diffs from RFC6006 (Perhaps we should request tools support for bis document diffs):
<https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6006.txt&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03>

The instructions in section 6.5 only indicate that IANA should update the document reference. The changes indicated in this section additionally reserve new values (specifically, the object type of "0" for object classes 28-31). As these changes are not called out, they run the risk of being overlooked. Please update the instructions to IANA to indicate that the registered values have changed, not just the document references.
2017-08-29
03 Adam Roach Ballot comment text updated for Adam Roach
2017-08-29
03 Adam Roach [Ballot comment]
Perhaps we should request tools support for bis document diffs:
<https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6006.txt&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03>
2017-08-29
03 Adam Roach Ballot comment text updated for Adam Roach
2017-08-28
03 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Is section 2 expected to be of more than background interest to an implementer? If not, I suggest moving it to an appendix, …
[Ballot comment]
Is section 2 expected to be of more than background interest to an implementer? If not, I suggest moving it to an appendix, or at least towards the back of the document.
2017-08-28
03 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-08-27
03 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-25
03 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I don't object the publication of this document.

However, I want to call attention to the latest IPR declaration [1] which seems to …
[Ballot comment]
I don't object the publication of this document.

However, I want to call attention to the latest IPR declaration [1] which seems to have resulted in a very, very, very late claim against this document *and* rfc6006.  Not only was the declaration done recently, but I don't think the WG was explicitly made aware of it.  I did look at the archive and this is what I found:

- WG Chair asked the authors to update the system to reflect that the IPR claimed against rfc6006 also applies to this document [2]

- a new IPR statement [1] was filed, which updated the previous one [3]

The problem is that the most recent statement [1] points to a patent ("US 12/404100") which is different from the one in the original statement [3] ("US 12/708048").  I take this update to mean that there is more IP than originally claimed -- resulting in a very, very, very late statement.  Note that it came in after the WGLC concluded and just a couple of days before the document was submitted to the IESG for Publication.

I'll let the WG chairs and the responsible AD take appropriate actions.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2983/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4rxUbSO16PU22ThiMHBf66M73yA/?qid=222caa9caf467838c3c40466e1de7e7e
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1686/
2017-08-25
03 Alvaro Retana Ballot comment text updated for Alvaro Retana
2017-08-25
03 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I don't object the publication of this document.

However, I want to call attention to the latest IPR declaration [1] which seems to …
[Ballot comment]
I don't object the publication of this document.

However, I want to call attention to the latest IPR declaration [1] which seems to have resulted in a very, very, very late claim against this document *and* rfc6006.  Not only was the declaration done recently, but I don't think the WG was explicitly made aware of it.  I did look at the archive and this is what I found:

- WG Chair asked the authors to update the system to reflect that the IPR claimed against rfc6006 also applies to this document [2]
- a new IPR statement [1] was filed, which updated the previous one [3]

The problem is that the most recent statement [1] points to a patent ("US 12/404100") which is different from the one in the original statement [3] ("US 12/708048").  I take this update to mean that there is more IP than originally claimed -- resulting in a very, very, very late statement.  Note that it came in after the WGLC concluded and just a couple of days before the document was submitted to the IESG for Publication.

I'll let the WG chairs and the responsible AD take appropriate actions.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2983/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4rxUbSO16PU22ThiMHBf66M73yA/?qid=222caa9caf467838c3c40466e1de7e7e
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1686/
2017-08-25
03 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-08-25
03 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
I could be helpful, also for implementors to update their code, to more explicitly spell out what the changes are (in the intro) …
[Ballot comment]
I could be helpful, also for implementors to update their code, to more explicitly spell out what the changes are (in the intro) instead of just listing the errata numbers.
2017-08-25
03 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-24
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-08-24
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2017-08-24
03 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-08-24
03 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2017-08-24
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2017-08-24
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-08-23
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-23
03 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are ten actions which we must complete.

First, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

the entry for Value 6 - P2MP Capable will have its reference changed from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the RP Object Flag Field registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

the following three entires will have their reference chanced from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Bit Description

18 Fragmentation (F-bit)
19 P2MP (N-bit)
20 ERO-compression (E-bit)

Third, in the Objective Function registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

the following two entires will have their reference chanced from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Code Point Name

7 SPT
8 MCT

Fourth, in the METRIC Object T Field registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

the following three entries will have their reference chanced from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Value Description

8 P2MP IGP metric
9 P2MP TE metric
10 P2MP hop count metric

Fifth, in the PCEP Objects registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

Object Class Value 4 will have three of its object type references changed from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Object-Class Value 4
Name END-POINTS
Object-Type 3: IPv4 [ RFC-to-be ]
4: IPv6 [ RFC-to-be ]
5-15: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]

Sixth, also in the PCEP Objects registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

Object-Class Values 28, 29, 30 and 31 will have their references changed from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Object-Class Value 28
Name UNREACH-DESTINATION
Object-Type 0: Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
1: IPv4 [ RFC-to-be ]
2: IPv6 [ RFC-to-be ]
3-15: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]

Object-Class Value 29
Name SERO
Object-Type 0: Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
1: SERO [ RFC-to-be ]
2-15: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]

Object-Class Value 30
Name SRRO
Object-Type 0: Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
1: SRRO [ RFC-to-be ]
2-15: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]

Object-Class Value 31
Name Branch Node Capability Object
Object-Type 0: Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
1: Branch node list [ RFC-to-be ]
2: Non-branch node list [ RFC-to-be ]
3-15: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]

Seventh, in 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/

Error Types 5, 16, 17 and 18 will have their references changed from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Error
Type Meaning Reference

5 Policy violation
Error-value=7: [ RFC-to-be ]
P2MP Path computation is not allowed

16 P2MP Capability Error
Error-Value=0: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]
Error-Value=1: [ RFC-to-be ]
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to insufficient memory
Error-Value=2: [ RFC-to-be ]
The PCE is not capable of P2MP computation

17 P2MP END-POINTS Error
Error-Value=0: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]
Error-Value=1: [ RFC-to-be ]
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 2
Error-Value=2: [ RFC-to-be ]
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 3
Error-Value=3: [ RFC-to-be ]
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to no END-POINTS with leaf type 4
Error-Value=4: [ RFC-to-be ]
The PCE is not capable to satisfy the request
due to inconsistent END-POINTS

18 P2MP Fragmentation Error
Error-Value=0: Unassigned [ RFC-to-be ]
Error-Value=1: [ RFC-to-be ]
Fragmented request failure

Eighth, in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

Bit 24 - P2MP Reachability Problem will have its reference changed from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ].

Ninth, in the SVEC Object Flag Field registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

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

Bits 19 and 20 will have their references changed from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Bit Description

19 Partial Path Diverse [ RFC-to-be ]
20 Link Direction Diverse [ RFC-to-be ]

Tenth, in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/

Bit 10 - P2MP path computation will have its reference changed from [RFC6006] to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Services Operator understands that these ten 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.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
2017-08-15
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2017-08-15
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2017-08-13
03 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2017-08-10
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2017-08-10
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2017-08-10
03 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-08-10
03 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-24):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03.txt> (Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Extensions to the Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol
  (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
  Paths'
  <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03.txt> 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 2017-08-24. 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


  Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
  MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may
  be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first
  need to be determined.  The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been
  identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the
  paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.

  This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol
  (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths
  for P2MP TE LSPs.

  This document obsoletes RFC 6006.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2983/





2017-08-10
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-08-10
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2017-08-10
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2017-08-10
03 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-31
2017-08-10
03 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2017-08-10
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2017-08-10
03 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2017-08-10
03 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2017-08-10
03 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2017-07-02
03 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03.txt
2017-07-02
03 (System) New version approved
2017-07-02
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Quintin Zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com>, Daniel King …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Quintin Zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com>, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
2017-07-02
03 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2017-07-02
02 Ben Niven-Jenkins Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. Sent review to list.
2017-06-29
02 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins
2017-06-29
02 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins
2017-06-29
02 Jonathan Hardwick Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Andrew Malis was rejected
2017-06-29
02 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andrew Malis
2017-06-29
02 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andrew Malis
2017-06-29
02 Jonathan Hardwick Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Eric Gray was rejected
2017-06-19
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray
2017-06-19
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray
2017-05-05
02 Deborah Brungard Routing Area Directorate review - Dimitri Papadimitriou.
2017-05-05
02 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2017-05-02
02 Julien Meuric This document now replaces draft-palleti-pce-rfc6006bis instead of None
2017-04-26
02 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Papadimitriou Dimitri
2017-04-26
02 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Papadimitriou Dimitri
2017-04-26
02 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2017-04-24
02 Jonathan Hardwick
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 …
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)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed standard. This is appropriate as the document describes extensions to the PCE protocol. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.

(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

This document describes extensions to the Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for Point to Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs).  This document corrects several errata in the original RFC 6006.

Working Group Summary

There was no controversy in the working group.  The only changes relative to RFC 6006 are straightforward errata corrections.  This document progressed rapidly through the working group.

Document Quality

There is at least one implementation of this protocol, which is why the errata in RFC 6006 were raised, and are now being fixed.

Personnel

Jon Hardwick is document Shepherd.
Deborah Brungard is the responsible area director.

(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.

I reviewed this document twice - once at working group adoption and again at last call.  I also reviewed the errata at the time they were raised.
I have no concerns about the document or the validity of the errata that are being fixed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. The document makes small changes to RFC 6006, which has already gone through the review and publication process.  This present bis draft also had one other detailed review from Adrian Farrel. The changes to RFC 6006 were also presented and discussed at IETF 97 without any disagreement.

(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.

Not applicable

(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.

None.

(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.

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

Yes.  Huawei originally filed an IPR disclosure against RFC 6006, which is also applicable to this draft, so it has been re-filed against this draft.
There is no new IPR corresponding to the changes relative to RFC 6006, just the original IPR disclosure from RFC 6006.

(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? 

This is the strong concurrence of a few individuals.
I think this is acceptable as the fixes it makes are straightforward and obvious.

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

There is one nit regarding pre-RFC5378 boilerplate text.
RFC 6006 was first drafted before 10 November 2008 and we have not been able to get confirmation from all the original authors that they will grant BCP78 rights to the IETF trust, so I think that the boilerplate is still required.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

(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, it will obsolete RFC 6006. This is mentioned in the title page header, the abstract and the introduction.

(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).

The IANA considerations section requests IANA to update its registry to refer to this new RFC-to-be instead of RFC 6006.  There are no other requests.


(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.

None.

(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.

Not applicable.
2017-04-24
02 Jonathan Hardwick Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2017-04-24
02 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2017-04-24
02 Jonathan Hardwick IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-04-24
02 Jonathan Hardwick IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-04-24
02 Jonathan Hardwick Changed document writeup
2017-04-21
Jasmine Magallanes Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to RFC 6006 and draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis
2017-04-21
Jasmine Magallanes Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to RFC 6006 and draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis
2017-04-10
02 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02.txt
2017-04-10
02 (System) New version approved
2017-04-10
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Fabien Verhaeghe <fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com>, Julien Meuric …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Fabien Verhaeghe <fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com>, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>, Quintin Zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org
2017-04-10
02 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2017-04-10
01 Jonathan Hardwick Changed document writeup
2017-03-28
01 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-01.txt
2017-03-28
01 (System) New version approved
2017-03-28
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Fabien Verhaeghe <fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com>, Julien Meuric …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramanjaneya Palleti <ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com>, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Fabien Verhaeghe <fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com>, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Quintin Zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org
2017-03-28
01 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision
2017-03-27
00 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2017-03-10
00 Jonathan Hardwick Notification list changed to Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>
2017-03-10
00 Jonathan Hardwick Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hardwick
2017-03-10
00 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2017-03-10
00 Jonathan Hardwick Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-03-10
00 Jonathan Hardwick Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-03-10
00 Dhruv Dhody New version available: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00.txt
2017-03-10
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-03-10
00 Dhruv Dhody Set submitter to "Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org
2017-03-10
00 Dhruv Dhody Uploaded new revision