With AD hat very clearly*off*, but as someone who cares a lot about PCE... Yes, I think this work is in scope, fits into the architecture, and is of interest. It should be adopted.
I think that the substance of the discussion that the WG needs to have as this I-D moves forward needs to be around the specific use case and the impact of the state on the operational aspects of the PCE and the network. We have previously found that scoping the PCE work to well-understood and contained problem spaces (while keeping one eye on extensibility and future potential) has made our work concrete and functional. This I-D certainly sets out a case for a specific application. I also the way the current draft puts some into scoping the amount of state and the rate of churn. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JP > Vasseur > Sent: 02 February 2012 08:14 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document > > Dear all, > > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more > discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the Working Group > for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in > favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG document. > > JP and Julien. > > JP. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
