Hi CCAMPers.
Following the meeting this morning, I would like to comment on the
numerous references to PCE with my chair hat on.
First, I am glad to see the PCE architecture being encompassed as a
relevant part of various proposals. Nevertheless, as said during several
PCE meetings, when it comes to make PCEP support a CCAMP feature, it is
most of the time driven by RSVP-TE capabilities and/or (IGP-driven) path
computation capabilities. As reminded during the PCE meeting in Taipei,
this obviously applies to flexi-grid work: when GMPLS protocol
extensions will be mature enough, PCEP extensions will become rather
straightforward and PCE-specific frameworks may be useless. I also know
how tempting it is for the optical world to address problems with
centralized entities, however the current PCE charter is not to solve
all issues which may benefit from a centralized entity (which is a very
_specific_ use case of PCE).
At this stage, my suggestion to CCAMP draft authors (mainly on
flexi-grid) is to tackle the work step by step without "chasing 2 hares"
at the same time; i.e. keep the PCE material on hold till the work is
mature enough, and, then, consider the opportunity to submit this
material to the _PCE WG_. Let me also take the opportunity to remind that:
- the PCE WG does not standardize a path computation entity, does not
standardize any structural architecture, but *protocols* relevant to its
_functional_ architecture;
- even if the PCE WG has started to work on some stateful features, it
does not automatically imply that anything tagged "stateful" is (nor
will be) in scope (please read again RFCs and WG I-Ds).
Best regards,
Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
