Hi, My major problems with the PCEP:
a) inability to introduce new constraints, diversities, their relaxation strategies, optimization criterias, etc. without modifying the protocol; b) inability to convey policies Igor > Hi, > > First of all, we would like to explain a bit further the process that > we followed to come up with the proposed PCEP protocol: > > We started by evaluating existing protocols (such as COPS, HTTP/XML + > others) to see whether we could meet the PCE requirements by means of > minor extensions (without negative impact on the protocol). > Considering the PCE WG's specific requirements, we came to the > conclusion that a new protocol was required and no existing protocol > could be naturally and efficiently extended to meet such > requirements. Furthermore, we did not want to have to use unneeded > features/functionalities that were present in existing protocols and > that have been designed for other purposes. > > Now to answer Adrian's question: > > Thus, we started to work on a new protocol (PCEP) for which we have > received so far quite a few comments which have been incorporated in > the latest revision (rev -02). Here are the following PCEP's > characteristics: > - Fully meets the PCE requirements spelled out in the PCE > communication requirement document (draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen- > reqs-02.txt) -> this is > detailed in Appendix A of the draft, > - Very lightweight protocol w/o complex state machinery, > - Easily extensible by adding new messages or objects should we > have to address new requirements in the future, > - Limited number of messages and objects (actually there are > several applications that would require the implementation a very > limited subset of objects) > - Maximum reuse of mechanisms which have already been defined > and deployed in other protocols (no need to re-invent the wheel !). > - Reuse of TCP for transport thus providing reliable messaging, > flow control, security, ... > - Support of solicited and unsolicited communication messages > - ... > > Note that implementers have expressed interest in such solution. > > Thanks. > > JP, Jean-Louis, Eiji, Alia, Arthi and Andrew. > > On Sep 29, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Three candidate protocols have been brought to my attention for us to >> consider. These are (in no specific order): >> - HTTP >> - PCECP (as draft-vasseur-pce-pcep-02.txt) >> - COPS >> >> I would like to close the nomination period, and move on to select our >> protocol. >> >> The best approach will be if supporters of the candidate protocols >> indicate (briefly) why their proposed protocol is suitable. It >> would also >> be helpful if they were frank about what the weaknesses of their >> proposal >> are. >> >> And please - this is not an election, it is an interview process. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> PS The reason why JP is keeping quite on this is that he is an >> author of >> draft-vasseur-pce-pcep-02.txt and so (quite rightly) is not >> occupying the >> chair during this discussion. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
