Subject: Document Action: 'A Path Computation Element (PCE) Based Architecture' to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:58:41 -0400

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'A Path Computation Element (PCE) Based Architecture '
   <draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05.txt> as an Informational RFC

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

The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and Bill Fenner.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05.txt

Technical Summary
 
  This document specifies the architecture for a Path Computation
  Element (PCE)-based model to address the problem of path computation
  in large, multi-domain, multi-region or multi-layer networks. This
  document describes a set of building blocks for the PCE architecture 
  from which solutions may be constructed.
 
Working Group Summary
 
  The WG had a consensus on progressing this document.
 
Protocol Quality
 
 Alex Zinin Reviewed this document for the IESG.

Note to RFC Editor
 
There are a few nits that should be fixed prior to publication:

  Nit1>> Section 6.8, third paragraph, Second sentence:

    However, in a single centralized PCE environment, a stateful PCE is
    almost a simple matter of remembering all of the TE LSPs the PCE
    has computed, if it can also be known that the TE LSPs were actually
    set up, and when they were torn down.

This should read: 

    However, in a single centralized PCE environment, a stateful PCE is
    almost a simple matter of remembering all of the TE LSPs the PCE
    has computed, that the TE LSPs were actually set up (if this can be 
    known), and when they were torn down.

  Nit2>> From section 6.8, (I think the seventh paragraph, at the
  bottom of page 23):

    A limited form of statefulness might be applied within an otherwise 
    stateful PCE.

This should read:

    A limited form of statefulness might be applied within an otherwise
    stateless PCE.

  Nit3>> Section 10, first paragraph, second sentence:

    There is unlikely to be any impact on intra-domain
    security, but...

This should read:

    The impact may be less likely to be an issue in the case of
    intra-domain use of PCE, but ...

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce