Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment with Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-12

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, db3546@att.com, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with Stateful PCE' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-12.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with
   Stateful PCE'
  (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-12.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Martin Vigoureux and Deborah
Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE
LSPs) using PCEP.

The automatic bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic
adjustment of the TE LSP bandwidth reservation based on the volume of
traffic flowing through the LSP.  This document describes PCEP
extensions for automatic bandwidth adjustment when employing an
Active Stateful PCE for both PCE-Initiated and PCC-Initiated LSPs.

Working Group Summary

There was nothing unusual in the working group processing of this document.

Before the document was adopted there were concerns regarding scaling and scope of the work.
The version of this I-D that was adopted handled these and had broad support from the WG at
the time of adoption and later during WGLC. There is consensus in the WG to publish this work. 

Document Quality

The authors report "a few" implementations supporting this feature. Some, they say,
are more complete than others.

A few people in the working group performed substantial reviews, but most of the
working group was quiet. During working group last call a good number of people
reported that they had read the document and supported publication.


Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Adrian Farrel
   Who is the Responsible Area Director?  Deborah Brungard

RFC Editor Note