Hi JP, Yes. I will submit the revision soon.
Thank you. Eiji On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:24:18 -0400 JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Eiji, > > > > From: Eiji Oki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:27:24 +0900 > > To: Fabien Verhaeghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt > > > > Fabien, > > > > Yes, you are right. We should match the base PCEP spec. > > We will change 3 to 4, 4 to 32, and 5 to 34. > > Is it OK to make this change during working group last call? > > If OK with you I would suggest to make the change now, and we will then Last > Call the document. > > Thanks. > > JP. > > > > > Thank you. > > Eiji > > > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:49:21 +0100 > > "Fabien Verhaeghe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Sorry to come back on this subject but it is still not clear to me why we > >> are using different subobject types between XRO and ERO/RRO/IRO in PCEP. > >> > >> Is there any particular reason? > >> > >> In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-11.txt > >> Type Subobject > >> 1 IPv4 prefix > >> 2 IPv6 prefix > >> 4 Unnumbered Interface ID > >> 32 Autonomous system number > >> > >> In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt > >> > >> Type Subobject > >> -------------+------------------------------- > >> 1 IPv4 prefix > >> 2 IPv6 prefix > >> 3 Unnumbered Interface ID > >> 4 Autonomous system number > >> 5 SRLG > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> Fabien > >> > >> > >>> -----Message d'origine----- > >>> De?: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Envoy鬆: mercredi 19 mars 2008 18:30 > >>> タ?: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Cc?: [email protected] > >>> Objet?: [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt > >>> > >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >>> directories. > >>> This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of > >>> the IETF. > >>> > >>> Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element > >>> Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions > >>> Author(s) : E. Oki, A. Farrel > >>> Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt > >>> Pages : 16 > >>> Date : 2008-3-19 > >>> > >>> The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path > >>> computation in support of traffic engineering in Multi-Protocol > >>> Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. > >>> > >>> When a Path Computation Client (PCC) requests a PCE for a route, it > >>> may be useful for the PCC to specify, as constraints to the path > >>> computation, abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups > >>> (SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the computed route. > >>> Such constraints are termed route exclusions. > >>> > >>> The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication > >>> protocol between PCCs and PCEs. This document presents PCEP > >>> extensions for route exclusions. > >>> > >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt > >>> > >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >>> > >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >>> Internet-Draft. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pce mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
