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: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
pce mailing list <pce@ietf.org>,
pce chair <pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'A Backward Recursive PCE-based
Computation (BRPC) Procedure To Compute Shortest Constrained
Inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths' to
Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) Procedure To Compute
Shortest Constrained Inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths '
<draft-ietf-pce-brpc-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward.
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-brpc-09.txt
Ballot Text
Technical Summary
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been
identified as a key requirement. This document specifies a procedure
relying on the use of multiple Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to
compute such inter-domain shortest constrained paths across a
predetermined sequence of domains, using a backward recursive path
computation technique. This technique preserves confidentiality
across domains, which is sometimes required when domains are managed
by different Service Providers.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?
As reported in the PROTO writeup (see below), CWG consensus is
good. WG last call issues were limited to editorial and minor
functional nits.
An IPR disclosure was made "somewhat late" in the process. The
working group was given the opportunity to discuss the issue and
consider whether to abandon the I-D and develop alternate mechanisms.
However, despite the fact that viable alternate mechanisms have been
shown to be possible, no-one in the working group expressed any
concerns or desire to make any changes.
Document Quality
There is one known implementation of this document with several
known implementations in the pipe-line. Given how small the
protocol extensions defined in this document are, it is considered
that proceeding on the basis of one implementation is OK.
Personnel
Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. Ross Callon is the
responsible AD.
The document defines small protocol enhancements to PCEP (which is
on the same IESG agenda This I-D requests further allocations from
the PCEP registry that IANA will create and manage. The same IANA
expert should suffice for both documents. The IANA section of this
I-D uses the same language as the PCEP specification and, in
particular, uses the same sub-registry names.