Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry

On 16/06/2016 7:25, Dhruv Dhody wrote: Hi Adrian, How would you all feel about 8? (My instinct is to push for 4, but I can pre-emptively compromise :-) I can work with 8 :) Seems quite reasonable to me :) now, let's say the "message" was the first (easy?) one. Objects and TLVs? Although I

Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry

Hi Adrian, 8 sounds like a good number. Cheers, Jeff On 6/16/16, 9:25 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" wrote: >Hi Adrian, > >> How would you all feel about 8? (My instinct is to push for 4, but I can >> pre-emptively compromise :-)

Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry

Hi Adrian, > How would you all feel about 8? (My instinct is to push for 4, but I can > pre-emptively compromise :-) I can work with 8 :) Regards, Dhruv > -Original Message- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: 15 June 2016 23:52 > To: Dhruv Dhody

[Pce] RFC 7897 on Domain Subobjects for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7897 Title: Domain Subobjects for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Author: D. Dhody, U. Palle, R. Casellas Status:

[Pce] RFC 7896 on Update to the Include Route Object (IRO) Specification in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7896 Title: Update to the Include Route Object (IRO) Specification in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Author:

Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP registry

To Ramon's point... > We do need to reach a consensus on what range to set aside. Yes, we do. Both to satisfy ourselves and to get past the current IESG (not the one that approved the MANET registry). I think you captured the essence. There should be enough code points to run the parallel