Following up from the Vancouver meeting (per the meeting report) I would
like your opinion on the following actions.
1. Discovery solutions work.
The meeting had good support for adopting
draft-leroux-pce-disco-proto-igp-00.txt as a Working Group draft to
provide IGP-based solutions for PCE discovery.
What is your opinion on this becoming a WG draft?
you mention solution*S* what does that exactly mean ? that the WG may
come out with more than one solution which seems to me to be advisable
as the proposed solution is only suitable when PCEs are located/
connected on LSRs in part. ABR; in that context start work on this is ok
along as its content is open to discussion
2. PCE Communications Protocol
The Vancouver meeting discussed both the process of selecting a PCECP and
the candidate protocol (PCEP) described in draft-vasseur-pce-pcep-02.txt.
The mood of the meeting was that PCEP should be worked on within the
working group, and there was no objection to this becoming a WG draft.
What is your opinion on this becoming a WG draft?
the discussion during the f2f meeting have clearly shown that there is
serious work that needs to be done on this document to structure the
protocol (per RFC 4101) such as to distinguish between the role of the
transport, the transaction primitives and information to be carried back
and forth between the client/server and the server; hence there is also
(as recorded during the meeting) an effort that needs to be provided to
clearly identify this information - in brief, yes, as long as these
objectives are maintained
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
