> -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:32 PM > 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
ok, three comments though: - units B-R is from def. speed(bps)-res.capacity(b) -> ? please check - still unclear to me whether isis pce disc. will or not use a separate inst. (cf. gen-app discussion at isis working group) - question about oscillation effects resulting from opposed obj. adv. from diff. pce's > - Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element > Communication Protocol draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-01.txt architectural impact to be clarified before moving forward i think that the important disc. point is whether such info obtained from TED or via other means also from <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/pce.txt> * 13) Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element * Communication Protocol * draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-00.txt (Jon Parker - 5mn) [95] * * Pce does not know class pool. * Dimitri: in interprovider context, how do you assure global significance? * Jon: this is an issue not tackled here. * Adrian: how PCE has knowledge class pool ? You would suggest to build this knowledge based on IGP * flooded information ? * JP: please respin the draft tackling issue raised by Dimitri * Not many people red the draft -> draft still does not seem to address that issue. > 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
