Oscar, Thank you for reviewing the draft.
As stated in the abstract, the framework document (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02) covers both MPLS-TE and GMPLS. The abstract states: "This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS tunnels via PCEP". The technology-specific extensions will be in separate documents. I strongly believe that there should be different documents for each of the technologies, as this makes it much easier for both implementation and discussions. For example, if an implementation supports just one of the technologies, it is easier to state "supports RFCxxx" than "supports sections y, z, w of RFCyyy". Thank you, Ina -----Original Message----- From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Oscar González de Dios Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:16 AM To: Jan Medved (jmedved); Fatai Zhang; Ramon Casellas; Julien Meuric Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & next steps Dear PCErs, In the case of current Working Group stateful PCE solution (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02), the focus is mainly on the new functions to be supported: Capability Negotiation, State Synchronization, LSP State Report , LSP Control Delegation, LSP Update Request, etc All these set of functions are independent whether it is a MPLS-TE or a GMPLS tunnel. Thus, I don't see why the scope should be limited to MPLS-TE. Would those functions be different in GMPLS and needed separate messages and objects, I would agree in separating the solution. For example, in the current draft, there are very few objects which are MPLS-TE specific. I have gone through the document several times to see the points which could be different in GMPLS, and I could not find them (maybe I miss something here, so If you think the number of specific MPLS-TE /GMPLS objects will be significant, please give the examples). All the new messages apply for both MPLS-TE and GMPLS, without the need of any change. For other applications of the stateful PCE, GMPLS and MPLS-TE may go in separate documents if there are many differences between them, and the documents are cleaner with separate extensions. "(in fact this is the case for Google; as a company we do not care about GMPLS, we /do/ very much care about MPLS-TE.) " Sorry, Ed, but the argument of a specific company position of what cares or not is by no means acceptable. Please, limit the arguments to technical and not political. Best Regards, Óscar ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ 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
