Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-18

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>, dd@dhruvdhody.com, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-18.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
   Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths'
  (draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-18.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, John Scudder
and Roman Danyliw.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any
   path.  SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions)
   that represent a source-routed policy.  Packet flows are steered into
   an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend
   node.  An SR Policy is made of one or more candidate paths.

   This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extension to signal candidate paths of the SR Policy.
   Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow stateful bring
   up of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP), without using the path
   computation request and reply messages.  This document is applicable
   to both Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over
   IPv6 (SRv6).

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? 

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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Dhruv Dhody. The Responsible
   Area Director is Roman Danyliw.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note