Hey guys; I'm not sure whether we're discussing the separation of extension drafts or the framework draft here. The framework draft will provide mechanisms to support both extensions. The extensions are separated because they are supporting very different use cases and it is significantly cleaner from a documentation maintenance and organization perspective.
best, -ed On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Ramon Casellas <ramon.casel...@cttc.es>wrote: > El 25/10/2012 11:39, Julien Meuric escribió: > > >> One 1st comment at this stage: you seem to suggest that the idea is to >> have separate document for MPLS-TE and GMPLS, but you do not give >> rationale. Apart from our history of RFC 5440 + draft-ietf-pce-gmpls (even >> with its scope, the former had a hard time), is there a particular reason >> for this choice? Do you expect much difference between those 2 kinds of >> extensions? Also keep in mind that GMPLS includes PSC... >> >> Dear Julien, all > > Thanks for the feedback, I understand your point about GMPLS and, if I > recall correctly, one of the reasons mentioned in previous internal > discussions was the relative maturity of one (RFC5440) with regard to the > other (draft-ietf-pce-gmpls). > > We can indeed discuss the different alternatives during IETF85, with all > the involved parties, authors, and the WG. Although, initially, I had a > slight preference to integrate GMPLS, (as I mentioned a while ago in my > review of Ed's earlier drafts), I am fine either way. > > Maybe Ed, Jan, Ina, Fatai, Young, Xian or Oscar can comment on this? > > Thanks and best regards, > R. > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pce<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
