A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30

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-pcep-yang@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol
   (PCEP)'
  (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document defines a YANG data model for the management of the
   Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for
   communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
   Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs.  The data model
   includes configuration and state data.

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? 

Finding consensus was as expected for a YANG module: strong concurrence of a few with consensus on
the usefulness.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  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?  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?

No known implementation so far.
It's a YANG module to be used through a management solution (e.g. NETCONF).
The I-D has been reviewed by the Routing and Security directorates, as well as YANG Doctors.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Julien Meuric. The
   Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

RFC Editor Note