Hi J.P., Julien,
You are right, together with the answer to the question whether or not
the WG supports the adoption of this ID as a WG, we added our opinions about
the matter.
So... answer to the question is yes. I like the solution, and the scope
of the draft.
Beyond that... As this draft touches the stateful PCE topic, we all
have more ideas about it and a wider scope. My opinion is that the scope of the
stateful PCE is bigger than the scope of the draft. Thus, this draft is not all
the basis of the stateful PCE (is a part of it). That is why I said it would be
interesting for me to start discussing that, and make a good and complete
foundation of the stateful PCE, covering several use cases.
I hope I have clarified the position... both in the question and in the
matter.
Óscar
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: JP Vasseur [mailto:[email protected]]
>Enviado el: jueves, 09 de febrero de 2012 14:48
>Para: Julien Meuric; [email protected]; Oscar González de Dios
>Asunto: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG
>document
>
>
>On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Julien Meuric wrote:
>
>> Oscar (and others),
>>
>> Your point is not clear to me. On the one hand, I understand you support
>having some work on stateful PCE, hence adding it to our charter. On the
>other hand, the current question is *not* on a charter update, but on
>adopting a particular I-D as a PCE WG document.
>> Therefore, could elaborate on where you are standing? "Interesting
>solution, suited for some specific cases" or "by no means the basis of the
>stateful PCE"?
>>
>> Moreover, be aware that tackling stateful PCE does not imply addressing the
>full stateful PCE problem space. Note that the proposed draft comes with a
>contained scope. Trying to widen our charter too much (e.g. Ramon
>mentioning "no signaling") is likely to face strong reluctance from the IESG.
>>
>
>I was about to comment along the exact same line. The question is indeed
>whether or not the WG supports the adoption of this ID as a WG, which of
>course implies that it is already part out of charter. The question of re-
>chartering is a different question that we could discuss during the PCE WG
>session in Paris.
>
>Thanks.
>
>JP.
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>>
>> Le 08/02/2012 11:47, Oscar González de Dios a écrit :
>>> Hi all PCErs,
>>>
>>> I also support the work in draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 and
>>> share
>the main concerns. Although I do support the work, I think we should start
>scoping the stateful PCE, looking at the architecture, application scenarios
>and
>use cases from a broad perspective, with many inputs from service providers,
>vendors and data center users (which are having more and more network
>needs). This draft is a very particular interesting solution, suited for some
>specific cases, but by no means the basis of the stateful PCE. Furthermore, it
>looks weird to have a WG stateful PCE document without being the stateful
>PCE in the charter.
>>>
>>> Thus, if everybody thinks that PCE is mature enough to start
>>> entering
>into more complex stuff, let's start building the basis of the stateful PCE.
>And
>then, have solutions for the different environments/use cases.
>>>
>>> Óscar
>>>
>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
>nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
>situado más abajo.
>>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
>>> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at
>>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pce mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
