On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote:
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.
Dear Dan, all
You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when
it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I
was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?.
For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the
draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them
and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so
bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained
:-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what
is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue?
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.
I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv?
1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence
representation? If so, then I agree
FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE
computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working
with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce,
and md-p2mp )
2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution?
If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :).
3. Should we adopt as a WG document?
Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can
wait until it is further discussed and matures.
Thanks for your comments
R
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
