Yes to both. Dean > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:32 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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
