Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-21

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: db3546@att.com, "Julien Meuric" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-21.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE'
  (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-21.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-stateful-pce/


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.

  Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the
  information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE
  control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across
  PCEP sessions.  This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP
  to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. 

Working Group Summary

The document already has a long history. It started with squatting some codepoints,
which resulted in publishing RFC 7470, a.k.a. "RFC 7150 bis".
Some changes have been heavily argued, mainly because of some reluctance to update
existing implementations, but this version reflects a WG consensus. 

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 have 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.

If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
review, on what date was the request posted?

N/A

Personnel

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