Subject: [Pce] Protocol Action: 'PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-14.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 09:19:11 -0800

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
   Controller (PCECC) of LSPs'
  (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-14.txt) as Proposed
  Standard

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

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Martin Vigoureux and Deborah
Brungard.

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

Technical Summary

A PCE-based Central Controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of
a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and
without necessarily completely replacing it.  Thus, the LSP can be
calculated/set up/initiated and the label forwarding entries can also
be downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network device
along the path, while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as
much as possible.
  
This document specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions for using
the PCE as the central controller.

Working Group Summary

No particular pain point. The discussion mainly happened in the TEAS WG.
Afterwards, the corresponding PCEP extensions progressed smoothly. 

Document Quality

No formal announcements though the document had interest from multiple
contributors.

Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Julien Meuric
   Who is the Responsible Area Director?  Deborah Brungard

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:53:09 +0530

Hi WG,

To carry the next-hop information, the PCECC I-D
(draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller) reuses the existing
IPV4-ADDRESS, IPV6-ADDRESS, and UNNUMBERED-ENDPOINT TLVs defined in
RFC 8779. The earlier version (-13) also included a new
LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS TLV for an interface that does not have a
global address assigned.

As per the IESG review and discussion with AD/Technical advisors, the
usage of this TLV is not clear and questionable in the scope of PCE.
This could benefit from further discussion in PCE and TEAS WG in
cooperation. Once the usage is clarified it could also be generalized
to be used in other cases in PCEP as well.

After further consultation, it is decided to remove this TLV from the
PCECC I-D. Deborah has approved the -14 version of the I-D.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien