A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, pce mailing list <email@example.com>, pce chair <firstname.lastname@example.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
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.