Hi Martin, On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:25 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-pce-07-03: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This group appears to have a fair amount of overlap with the soon-to-close > ALTO, but that certainly does not prevent rechartering. Dhruv: I would categorize that PCE and ALTO "complement" each other rather than "overlap". > Arguably, CATS is also > related, but that's not my WG so I'm sure the relevant ADs will work that > out. > > Dhruv: There is a possibility in future for it but as of now there is no work proposed nor it is listed in the CATS charter. > Is TED synchronization in or out of scope? > > > Dhruv: Yes if PCEP is being used for such synchronization. One could say its implicit in stateful PCE, but may be we can make it explicit - Definition of the PCEP extensions used by a stateful PCE for > recommending a new path for an existing or new LSP to the PCC/PCE. > Further protocol extensions must cover the case where the receiving > PCC/PCE chooses not to follow the recommendation. The PCEP > extensions for state synchronization are also in scope. Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
