Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
RFC 8232

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, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations@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: '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

This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working

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

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

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.


Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd.
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director.