Hi all, I think "stateful PCE" is very interesting work and I would like to support this work move forward.
As Adrian pointed out that this I-D certainly sets out a case for a specific application, this I-D mainly focuses on the PCEP extensions for a specific application. I would like to follow what Ramon said. We know that there were lots of arguments or doubts on stateful PCE when someone proposed to start stateful PCE (or related) work item before. Therefore, I think we need to have a delicate document to describe the scenarios, applicability, requirements, and then identify the potential PCEP extensions requirements for stateful PCE. Lastly, we can have another protocol extensions document like this I-D to describe the PCEP extensions. If the WG think that it is right time to adopt this draft, please count "yes" from me to support this adoption. Thanks Fatai -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: 2012年2月3日 2:28 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document 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 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
