RFC 9753: Extension for Stateful PCE to Allow Optional Processing of Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document introduces a mechanism to mark some of the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) objects as optional during PCEP message exchange, so the stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) model can relax some constraints during path computation and setup. This document introduces this relaxation to stateful PCE, and it updates RFC 8231.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9753
- Published
- April 2025
- Authors
- C. Li; H. Zheng; S. Litkowski
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 10
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 8231
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9862Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate PathsCurrent
October 2025
- RFC 9603Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for IPv6 Segment RoutingUpdated
July 2024
- RFC 9916Updates to the Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)Current
July 2026
- RFC 9357Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCEUpdated
February 2023
- RFC 8786Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters FlagsCurrent
May 2020
- RFC 8745Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCEUpdated
March 2020
- RFC 8697Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs)Updated
January 2020
- RFC 8356Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)Current
March 2018
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?