Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "The IESG" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Protocol Action: 'Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE' (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10.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-sync-optimizations/
Technical Summary A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is a PCE whose path computations take into account the resources and interactions of the currently active paths in the network. A stateful PCE uses a reliable state synchronization mechanism to learn the set of active paths from its Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and peer stateful PCEs. The basic state synchronization procedure is part of the stateful PCE specification. This draft describes various optional optimizations to the state synchronization procedure, and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions. Working Group Summary There was some strong opposition from members of the WG to publishing these optimizations in the base stateful PCE specification, because they wanted to keep the base specification as streamlined as possible. The WG therefore decided instead to publish these optimizations separately from the base stateful PCE protocol. Apart from this, there were no particular points of contention in the WG process. The consensus behind publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC appears solid. Document Quality There are at least two implementations of the optimizations described in this document. The document has had several reviews by members of the working group. Personnel Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director.