Hi Dimitri,
On Sep 18, 2007, at 4:04 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
j-p
simple question: why only the policy doc. ?
why are the other documents not liaised to IP Sphere ? or you would
like
to reserve a specific treatment to the policy document (the enabler of
the whole stuff at the inter-domain level) ?
As discussed during the last PCE IETF meeting and as reported in the
minutes,
the idea was simply to see whether IPSphere might have comments/feed-
backs
to provide. There is no "specific treatment", the idea of seeking for
comments from
IPSphere on this document is motivated by the fact that they are
actively working
on policy. This is not a formal liaison, just a proposal for comments.
Note that the goal is to not delay the progress of document by all
means (thus the
dead-line for comments (mid-October).
Thanks.
JP.
-d.
-----Original Message-----
From: JP Vasseur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lou Berger; Igor Bryskin; Dimitri
Papadimitriou; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Thomas Walsh; JACQUENET Christian RD-TCH-REN
Subject: [Pce] Update on draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp
Dear WG,
From the WG minutes of the IETF-69 meeting:
12) Update on Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework
draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp-01.txt (Lou - 5mn) [110]
Lou> ready for Last Call
JP> It sounds ready. Suggestion: offer IPSphere to have a
look at the doc before last call. JP will be the point
of contact. Asked Ross whether this is a good idea, and Ross
agreed. Once comments are received, last call.
Adrian> OK, but this is not an indefinite consultation. We
want to be able to move ahead and complete the I-D
relatively soon.
We have contacted IPSphere and RA WG of IPSphere should
provide us some feed-back by
mid-October. I have copied Tom Walsh and Christian Jacquenet
(chair of the RAWG) IPSphere.
Thanks.
JP.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
