Hi Adrian.
The 1st purpose you advocate is indeed relevant in the document. Then,
there is no reason to drop only the 3rd paragraph. The proposed
sub-section looks all right to me and, obviously, it does not preclude
to mention it in others I-Ds. I think this addresses my comment.
Cheers,
Julien
Le 27/06/2012 18:48, Adrian Farrel a écrit :
Hi Julien,
Thanks for this review. We are making all the changes except:
Section 6
I reckon "BGP-TE" spans a broader scope than H-PCE. I feel like
draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability could be an option. Note the
text should find a home before being dropped. In the latter case, 2
references along the I-D will need a pointer update. If it is kept in
there, I would suggest to rephrase the section title (the reference tag
is all right) to avoid misunderstanding, e.g. "A Note on the Use of BGP
for TED Synchronization".
We feel this section serves two purposes:
1. explain how BGP-TE is not necessarily a suitable substitute for H-PCE
2. show how BGP-TE may be a good northbound
The first point (1st two paras of section 6) should stay.
Second point is 3rd para of section 6. It is quite short. We agree it could be
in applicability statement and we will add a forward pointer, but we think it is
useful to keep the text here as well. As a compromise, we have split it out into
a separate section named as you suggested.
New revision soon.
Cheers,
Adrian (and probably Dan and the others :-)
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
