-----Original Message----- From: zali <z...@cisco.com> Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:18 PM To: "cyril.marga...@nsn.com" <cyril.marga...@nsn.com>, "draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-...@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-...@tools.ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00
>>I think the document has good material, but address several separated >>points : >>1. Active Stateful PCE Applicability >>2. MPLS multi-layer aspects >>3. GMPLS (GENERALIZED-BW and SWITCH-LAYER) >> >>I think the second point may have a document on its own, but the first >>and third point could be managed by merges. > >Like mentioned above, we are open to document rearrangement(s), if it >simplify the process. At the moment this work is outside the scope of WG >charter. I am sure in due time we will have more of such discussion and >opinion from the WG. There are example where WG liked to keep GMPLS >extensions separate from (packet) MPLS work. Hi Margaria- Now that this is a chartered item, let's close on your comments. We will update the document based on your comments received under this thread. However, document restructuring also requires agreement from authors/ drivers for the other drafts. - (3) in above require merger of related text to draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp. - (1) requires merger to stateful PCE draft. Let's use this email to solicit feedback for authors of these draft if they agree to the merge. I am fine, either-way but have a feeling that separate document may remain a reality. Thanks Regards Š Zafar _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
