Subject: [Pce] Document Action: 'PCE Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for Inter-Area Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering' to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:45:17 -0400

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'PCE Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for 
   Inter-Area Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS 
   (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering '
   <draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-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-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt

Technical Summary
 
   This document lists a detailed set of requirements for the Path 
   Computation Element Communication Protocol for support of inter-
   area TE-LSP path computation. This specifically applies to paths 
   that cross multiple areas within a single IGP routing domain. It 
   complements the generic requirements for a PCE Communication 
   Protocol. 
 
Working Group Summary
 
   no dissent reported. 
 
Protocol Quality
 
   Ross Callon has reviewed this spec for the IESG. As a requirements 
   document, it inherently isn't implemented, but there is ongoing 
   work to update the PCE Communications Protocol to handle inter-area
   path computation consistent with these requirements. 

Note to RFC Editor
 
   The email address for Nabil Bitar (in section 11 contributors'
   addresses) should be [email-masked]. 

   Please replace the second paragraph of section 5 (Manageability
   Considerations) as follows:

   Old Text (one paragraph to be removed):

   A built in diagnostic tool MUST be defined to monitor the 
   performances of a PCE chain, in case of multiple-PCE inter-area path 
   computation. It MUST allow determining the minimum maximum and 
   average response time globally for the chain, and on a per PCE basis.

   New Text (two paragraphs to be added):

   It is really important, for diagnostic and troubleshooting reasons,
   to monitor the availability and performances of each PCE of a PCE
   chain used for inter-area path computation. Particularly it is 
   really important to identify the PCE(s) responsible for a delayed
   reply. 

   Hence a mechanism MUST be defined to monitor the performances of a
   PCE chain. It MUST allow determining the availability of each PCE
   of the chain as well as its minimum maximum and average response
   time.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce