Hi Dan, Thanks for your support.
Please see inline, > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Dan Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : lundi 13 août 2007 12:21 > À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds > > Hi, > > > - Encoding of Objective Functions in Path Computation Element (PCE) > > communication and discovery protocols > > draft-leroux-pce-of-01.txt > > > Yes, I support this work. > One question: > There are 6 OFs are mandatory, so PCE may not need to > advertise these 6 OFs to PCC, and PCC can assume that PCE > should support these 6 OFs. If PCE does not, then the error > message should be sent to PCC. Is this implied in this draft? Actually no. What is mandatory is the capability to encode these six OF, and not the support of these six OF on the PCE. Also have a look at section 8.1: "Also note that it is not mandatory for an implementation to support all objective functions defined in section 5." Hope this clarifies. Regards, JL > > > - Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element > > Communication Protocol draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-01.txt > > > Yse, I support this work. > > Regards, > > Dan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:31 PM > Subject: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds > > > > Hi, > > > > The meeting in Chicago was broadly in support of adopting > two I-Ds as > > working group drafts: > > > > - Encoding of Objective Functions in Path Computation Element (PCE) > > communication and discovery protocols > > draft-leroux-pce-of-01.txt > > > > - Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element > > Communication Protocol draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-01.txt > > > > Can you please indicate your opinion. > > > > > > Now that the inter-AS requirements work is stable, the > authors of two I-Ds > > related to the use of PCE for P2MP path computations > (Adrian is one of the > > authors) have asked us to look at adopting this work. We > think that a little > > more discussion is needed first, and have asked them to > present the I-Ds in > > Vancouver so that we can make a decision immediately > afterwards. Please have > > a look at the I-Ds and send your comments to the mailing list. > > > > - PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for Point to Multipoint > > Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-02.txt > > > > - Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to > > Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) > > and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt > > > > Thanks, > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
