El 02/02/2012 9:14, JP Vasseur escribió:
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.
Dear PCErs
I share Adrian's comments. The stateless PCE as a functional component
of a control plane is well understood and I think that, in view of
potential & new use cases such as software defined networks/openflow
and other control & management schemes, there is room to take the PCE a
step further, not necessarily tied to a GMPLS control plane.
I cannot comment on the concrete, technical details of the draft itself
yet, as I just read it globally (I plan to read it carefully when time
permits, most surely before Paris).
To be clear, yes I support the adoption of the draft.
However, as a minor comment, the stateful PCE is briefly covered in
RFC4655, and in more depth in sections 2-5 of crabbe's draft, but I
wonder (I am really not sure myself) whether we would need to split it
and consider first, a more detailed architecture, functional
requirements/framework, use cases (i.e. no signaling, direct vertical
configuration of the forwarding state) and architecture, and once agreed
on those, propose protocol extensions. Is the stateful PCE a wide
enough topic to go this path? The draft seems to bundle a full solution
:) -- I guess this is more an open question rather than a comment on the
draft itself
Thanks
R.
--
Ramon Casellas, Ph.D.
Research Associate - Optical Networking Area -- http://wikiona.cttc.es
CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya, PMT Ed B4
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain
Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 -- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
