There's a relatively light support of these drafts but no opposition
and we clearly need MIBs for PCE discovery.
Emile, could you re-publish both I-Ds as WG documents?
Furthermore, I would suggest you to pool the WG on the various
related items that were discussed in San diego for which you asked
for WG feed-back.
Thanks.
JP and Adrian.
Begin forwarded message:
From: JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 22, 2006 10:01:18 AM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Pce] Feed-back on new WGs documents
Dear WG,
Could you provide us your feed-back on adopting the two following
IDs as a WG documents ?
draft-stephan-pce-tc-mib-00 - Definitions of Textual Conventions
for Path Computation Element
draft-stephan-pce-disc-mib-00 - Definitions of Managed Objects for
Path Computation Element Discovery Protoocl
Note that other MIB-related IDs are expected (e.g. PCEP, ...).
JP and 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
