Skip to main content

Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    pce mailing list <>,
    pce chair <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element communication Protocol' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-01.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element
   communication Protocol'
  (draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-01.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working

The IESG contact persons are Alia Atlas and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

    The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) is used to
   convey path computation requests and responses both between Path
   Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs) and
   between cooperating PCEs.  In PCEP, the path computation requests
   carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC
   wishes the PCE to apply in its computation.

   This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
   in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Value (TLV)
   that can be carried in any PCEP object that supports TLVs.

   This document obsoletes RFC 7150. The only changes from that
   document are a clarification of the use of the new Type-Length-Value
   and the allocation of a different code point for the VENDOR-
   INFORMATION object.

Working Group Summary

    This bis versions became necessary because of an inadvertant
     clash with codepoints used in another Internet-Draft that had been
     deployed without IANA allocation.  The PCE working group has
     conducted a survey of implementations and deployments of RFC 7150
     and considers that this change is safe and does not harm early
     implementers of RFC 7150.

Document Quality

  Some implementations claim to use the extensions defined in the I-D. The original RFC 7150 already passed IESG review.


  Who is the Document Shepherd?  Julien Meuric

 Who is the Responsible Area Director?  Alia Atlas

RFC Editor Note