Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11

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>, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, julien.meuric@orange.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model'
  (draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11.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-pce-initiated-lsp/

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 extensions for stateful PCE provide stateful control of
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label
  Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates
  control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE.  This
  document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs
  under the stateful PCE model.


Working Group Summary

Given the consensus to consider it, the WG had to update its charter to include
that work, which was at the boundary of the former scope. This I-D
complements draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce. 

Document Quality

There are several implementations, including one open source (OpenDaylight).

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? 
Yes, even more than plans.

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? 
Some updates have been triggered by a couple of operators,
thanks to some interoperability testing between several implementations.

 Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Julien Meuric
   Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard

RFC Editor Note