Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters Flags
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-01

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>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>, hari@netflix.com, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters Flags' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-01.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters Flags'
  (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-01.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-flags/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Extensions to the Path Computation Element communications Protocol
   (PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are
   defined in RFC 8231.  One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE
   Request Parameters (SRP) object.  That object includes a Flags field
   that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry
   for tracking assigned flags.  However, RFC 8231 does not explain how
   an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted
   messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned,
   unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages.

   This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors.

Working Group Summary

This I-D being a very focused and uncontroversial fix, it has been moved
directly from individual draft to WGLC and submitted to the AD. Based
on the direction from the AD, the file name was changed to reflect the
WG output and to garner more visibility within the WG. 

Document Quality

A private and unscientific poll of implementers of RFC 8231 conducted
by the author suggests that existing implementations already abide by
the modification set out in this document.

Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
   Who is the Responsible Area Director?  Deborah Brungard

RFC Editor Note