please see inline
3) Association control : the PCC and any PCE can create associations:
> this diverge from the existing mechanism from the statefull document.
> In my opinion this aspect makes the control and state maintenance more
> complicated. The use cases behind this multiple-controller m
Hi all,
Nov. 05, 2015 - lber...@labn.net:
Loa = Lou = me
Does it mean we've all been abused by this fake beard for years?!
Anyway, than you for working together during adoption polling: that is a
strong move to build the consensus we are trying to judge there.
Regards,
Julien
___
Hi Ina,
On 11/5/2015 6:42 PM, Ina Minei wrote:
> Cyril,
>
> Thank you for the review and discussion, please see inline ###.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Cyril Margaria
> mailto:cyril.marga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My comments on the document are:
>
>
> 1) The f
Cyril,
Thank you for the review and discussion, please see inline ###.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Cyril Margaria
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My comments on the document are:
>
>
> 1) The format goes in the good,direction, but is not yet fully aligned
> with rfc6780, is this planned for a future revi
So responding a bit late, as promised in today's session. Sorry I
missed your message when first sent.
On 8/21/2015 6:22 PM, Zhangxian (Xian) wrote:
> Hi, Lou,
>
> Thank you for the useful comments. Let me try to explain to see if we
> can converge before we updating the draft.
>
> Let me start
Hi,
My comments on the document are:
1) The format goes in the good,direction, but is not yet fully aligned
with rfc6780, is this planned for a future revision?
2) My concern is the following statements:
"For both
cases, the association is uniquely identified by the combination of
an
Hi, Lou,
Thank you for the useful comments. Let me try to explain to see if we can
converge before we updating the draft.
Let me start with the objective of the draft: to define a general mechanism
that support LSP association via PCEP. So, we confine ourselves to having
minimum/MUST-hav
Function.
-- but encoding is fine too (and why not?)...
Lou
On 07/26/2015 09:19 AM, Ina Minei wrote:
> Lou,
>
> Thank you for the feedback. Can you clarify the first comment about
> reuse of the extended association object from RFC6780, are you asking
> about the object encoding or about the f
Authors,
Useful draft & additional function. I have two comments:
1) Is there a reason to not follow and provide the full function
supported by RSVP Extended ASSOCIATION Object [RFC6780]?
2) For Association Source field I suggest:
OLD
An IPv4 or IPv6 address, which
is associated to
