Hi Dan,
I guess that for the document the most relevant question is really
number 1, if there is a need to standardize the representation of a domain
sequence (vs the set of Inter-domain Links or set of Border nodes). Questions
2 and 3 are not yet decided, as they apply for a specific solution, not the
concept. So, if the concept is OK (question 1), it can be mentioned in the
document. You can count with a yes from me for the first question. The rest,
let's see later.
Óscar
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] En nombre de
>Daniel King
>Enviado el: jueves, 02 de febrero de 2012 11:57
>Para: 'Ramon Casellas'; [email protected]
>Asunto: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to
>draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability)
>
>Hi Ramon, All,
>
>We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include
>"gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As usual
>though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments
>are clearly required. The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is
>interesting, but the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly
>has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled.
>
>So my first few questions would be:
>
>1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence
>representation? If so, then I agree draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability
>is
>a viable candidate to document the requirements.
>
>2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution?
>
>3. Should we adopt as a WG document?
>
>If we can answer "yes" to all questions, then I would have no problem
>referencing the document in draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability.
>
>Br, Dan.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>Ramon Casellas
>Sent: 01 February 2012 15:53
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Pce] New Version of draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability
>(02)
>
>Dear all, Dan
>
>El 16/01/2012 21:18, Daniel King escribió:
>> 3. Are we missing any PCE technology, mechanisms, protocol extensions?
>> So far I think we have touched on the following technologies in the
>document:
>(snip)
>Let me just mention Dhruv's draft on domain sequence encoding. It touches a
>quite concrete aspect on domain sequences but I believe it is relevant
>
>Caveat emptor: Yours truly is a co-author.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:
>> draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-02.txt
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pce mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pce mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
