Dear Dan, Ramon and All, A new update of the draft is on the way which will close all open issues. I will hope for WG adoption after that. Bunch of other inter-domain effort in WG (HPCE, P2MP, etc) already references this document. As the role of "draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability" to cover inter-domain applicability in a broad sense, IMHO, this work could be included/referenced now or in later stage.
Regards, Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:02 PM To: Daniel King Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote: > Hi Ramon, All, > > We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include > "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As usual > though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments are > clearly required. Dear Dan, all You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?. For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained :-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue? > The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is > interesting, but the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly > has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv? > > 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence > representation? If so, then I agree FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce, and md-p2mp ) > 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution? If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :). > 3. Should we adopt as a WG document? Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can wait until it is further discussed and matures. Thanks for your comments R _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
