Yes, I support both I-D's.
Young
-----Message -------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:31:59 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
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
