1. Introduction

- One new RFC [H-PCE].
- Expired Documents: GMPLS APS, enhanced errors, inter-layer, MIBs, VPN req. See WG co-chair slides for full detail. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-pce-13.pdf
- PCE vendor constraints is ready for LC.
- VPN Requirements document, solutions work helps develop requirements so we parked while this happens.
- Drafts not on the agenda: GMPLS extensions, inter AS-Area, domain sequence.
- KARP review, thanks to Dan [King].


- Major change, read-only.
- Comment received that allowing what the configurable parameters are would be helpful.
- Another comment asked if it was time to move away from SNMP?
- A co-author mentioned that based on feedback the draft should not include write

2.2. P2MP Inter-domain path computation

- Document to be Last Called shortly.
- IPR Issue has been resolved, since the requested status is “experimental”.

3.1. PCEP extensions for Service-aware LSPs

- Co-chair poll to see who read the draft. Approximately 20 people. No one opposed to WG adoption.
- Co-chairs suggested to take to list.

3.2. PCEP Extensions for WDM

- Co-chair poll to see who read the draft. Approximately 15 people. No one opposed to WG adoption.
- Co-chairs suggested to take to list.

4.1 Recharter Discussion

- A number of comments made regarding the definition of stateful PCE and modifying LSPs or setting up new LSPs. Co-chairs reminded WG that the objective of PCE is online, and not a network planning tool.

- Area director suggested that a discussion on the list to discuss terminology and wording of recharter.

4.2. Stateful PCE: taxonomy of active/passive

- Various comments raised at the mic regarding the definition of stateful PCE, network controller and scope of stateful PCE.

- Presenter highlighted that stateful PCE is within charter. Others agreed but felt the recharter will help to clarify the work.

- Further discussions are required to scope the role of active and passive PCE and the architectural aspects.

4.3. Applicability of Stateful PCE

- Co-chairs felt the authors did not state the positives and negatives of stateful PCE within the document. They suggested the authors provide a more balanced analysis.

4.4. Update on a few stateful PCE individual I-Ds

- Co-chairs highlighted that if this work impacts the vendor constraints document, they should communicate changes or updates.

- Authors were asked to synch terminology across I-Ds.

- A number of questions still remaining unanswered on the mailing list.

4.5. PCEP Extensions for remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs

- Comment was made that there could be applicability to make this more generic. See RFC6107 (MPLS aspects).

4.6. PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCEP in GMPLS Networks

- Sent to the mailing list (end of session).