Thanks - No stateful PCE is part of our charter as documented in RFC4655 Section 6.8. Thanks.
JP. On Feb 7, 2012, at 3:03 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > +1 > > support > > BTW, I remember that there is another draft addressing the requirements > froming GMPLS, draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt, maybe the usecases can be > combined > together. Furthermore, do we need to recharter the scope of PCE WG to reflect > the related work? > > > Best regards > > Fei > > > JP Vasseur <[email protected]> > 发件人: [email protected] > 2012-02-02 16:14 > > 收件人 > [email protected] > 抄送 > 主题 > [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
