JP, Absolutely agree to this point, neither stateful PCE nor any other technology is a silver bullet :) There are scenarios where it fits better and others where existing solutions are just as good. Following your guidance at the previous IETF, the authors revised the draft while paying attention to this point, and we tried to show a balanced view of different use cases, including pros and cons.
We welcome review and specific suggestions on how to further improve the document, Ina From: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) [mailto:jvass...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:02 AM To: Leeyoung Cc: Ina Minei; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: Stateful PCE applicability We just need to be careful not to make well balanced showing the pros and cons since this cannot be seen as the magic solution to all problems. On Jun 26, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Leeyoung wrote: Hi, I support the idea of the need for Stateful PCE applicability. As stated in the latest draft, this document is pivotal in providing an overarching stateful PCE applicability to various scenarios. This draft should have preceded any other stateful PCE related drafts, but it is not too late to include this work in PCE WG. Regards, Young From: pce-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:20 AM To: Ina Minei; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE applicability Thanks Ina - good question : WG, please voice your opinion Thanks JP. On Jun 21, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Ina Minei wrote: Dear chairs and working group, In light of the recent working group re-charter which now includes stateful PCE, we wanted to hear the opinions of the group on 1. the need for an applicability document for stateful PCE and 2. whether draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app satisfies this need, or any gaps it might have Thank you, Ina and Xian
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
