Subject: [Pce] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-02.txt

From: Olivier Dugeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:27:30 +0200

Dear all,

We have just submited a new version of our obsolete draft about the PCE 
Database requirements.

Main modifications are as follow:

  - Change name to PCE Database Requirement to extend the scope
  - Include LSP database
  - Add a new section about the Database representation of the 
inter-domain part

Comments are welcome.

Regards,

Olivier

-------- Message original --------
Sujet:     New Version Notification for draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-02.txt
Date :     Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:16:42 -0700
De :     <[email-masked]>
Pour :     Richard Douville <[email-masked]>, 
"Oscar Gonzalez de Dios" <[email-masked]>, Julien Meuric 
<[email-masked]>, "Olivier Dugeon" 
<[email-masked]>, Ramon Casellas <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Olivier Dugeon and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:     draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs
Revision:     02
Title:         Path Computation Element (PCE) Database Requirements
Creation date:     2013-07-15
Group:         Individual Submission
Number of pages: 15
URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-02.txt
Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs
Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-02
Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-02

Abstract:
    The Path Computation Element (PCE) working group (WG) has produced a
    set of RFCs to standardize the behavior of the Path Computation
    Element as a tool to help MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSP tunnels placement.
    In the PCE architecture, a main assumption has been done concerning
    the information that the PCE needs to perform its computation. In a
    fist approach, the PCE embeds a Traffic Engineering Database (TED)
    containing all pertinent and suitable information regarding the
    network that is in the scope of a PCE.  Nevertheless, the TED
    requirements as well as the TED information have not yet been
    formalized.  In addition, some recent RFC (like the Backward
    Recursive Path Computation procedure or PCE Hierarchy) or WG draft
    (like draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce ...) suffer from a lack of
    information in the TED, leading to a non optimal result or to some
    difficulties to deploy them.  This memo tries to identify some
    Database, at large, requirements for the PCE.  It is split in two
    main sections: the identification of the specific information to be
    stored in the PCE Database and how it may be populated.

The IETF Secretariat