Yes to both. Cheers, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:32 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
