Update to the Include Route Object (IRO) Specification in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-07

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: db3546@att.com, "Jonathan Hardwick" <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, draft-ietf-pce-iro-update@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation
   Element communication Protocol (PCEP)'
  (draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-07.txt) as Proposed Standard

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

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah
Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-iro-update/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

This document updates RFC 5440 (Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)) with some additional rules about the semantics and format of the Include Route Object (IRO).  Specifically:
-  The IRO is now to be regarded as an ordered list (previously this was left to the interpretation of the implementation).
-  The IRO subobjects gain an extra bit to indicate whether they are strict or loose hops.

Working Group Summary

 A survey was done of the PCE working group to determine how current implementations interpret the IRO.  There were 9 respondents to the survey, which represents a good cross-section of PCEP implementers.  The survey results were published in [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey].  The results were not unanimous, but it was clear that the majority of implementations would either be unaffected, or not significantly affected, by the change in semantics and format that are proposed in this draft. 

Document Quality

 At the time of the survey, there were already 5 implementations that conformed to the updates specified by this draft.  Several other implementers have indicated that they plan to update their implementations to be in line with this draft.  There have been no MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done.
 
Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Jonathan Hardwick  
   Who is the Responsible Area Director?  Deborah Brungard

RFC Editor Note