Hi, I support this work. And there are a few of things that I'd like to add.
1. When we re-charter, I'd like the WG to consider the "north-bound" PCE interface that would enable communication with "Application" layer. This may be a deviation from the current PCE, but I think it may be worthwhile to explore this option in the PCE WG. This would make the stateful PCE use case more applicable to the real need to enable application interaction with TE networks. Dhrov and I are working on a draft along this line and should be available shortly. 2. I share the sentiment with Ramon and Fatai. The current draft is a solution draft. What needs to be complemented on top of the current writing is motivation, high-level architecture, use cases at the minimum. This can be a separate document or included in the current draft although I prefer the former. 3. The current draft talks about time-based scheduling capability. I think this make a PCE really powerful. Architecturally, there needs to be a bit clearer discussion as to how this would be different from NMS. Thanks. Young -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:14 AM 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
