Dave,
Thanks, good catch - we're actually trying to say that the behavior is specified in 3209 AND is desirable for the reasons given. We will correct the text. cheers, -ed On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Cooper, Dave <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Jan, > I'd like to express my support for this draft. > > One note; > > In the 3.1.2.3 Deadlock section, the first paragraph is a little > confusing. I'm unsure why the behavior is not desirable given the > explanations made. Do you mean that attempts to signal a LSP's bandwidth > increase, for a given priority, may lead to sub-optimal allocation of > "global" resources if the reservations of existing LSPs already signaled > are not taken into account? > > Thanks, > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Jan Medved > > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:02 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-crabbe-pce-stateful- > > pce-01.txt > > > > Hello, > > > > We submitted a new version of the Stateful PCE draft, where we addressed > > comments / suggestions from reviewers on the mailing list - many thanks > to > > all who reviewed & commented. > > > > We to hope to have a good discussion of the draft in Taipei. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Ed+Jan+Robert > > > > > > > > > > On 10/30/11 11:50 PM, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >A new version of I-D, draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-01.txt has been > > >successfully submitted by Jan Medved and posted to the IETF repository. > > > > > >Filename: draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce > > >Revision: 01 > > >Title: PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE > > >Creation date: 2011-10-30 > > >WG ID: Individual Submission > > >Number of pages: 41 > > > > > >Abstract: > > > The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides > > > mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path > > > computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. > > > > > > Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the > > > information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for > > > synchronization or PCE control of timing and sequence of path > > > computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document > > > describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable this functionality, > > > providing stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) > > > Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The IETF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
