Hi, PCE'er,
I just noticed that this WG document has been updated without any WG
decisions/discussions. As I recall, there is no sufficient discussion during
last IETF meeting, nor any public email discussion, with regard to how to
proceed with this WG document. As a young engineer involved in IETF work, a
standard way for updating a WG document, from what I observe, should it be that
any modifications are based on the WG discussion?
During last IETF meeting, I presented a proposal with regard to "stateful
PCE" work. To state again, we would like to see this work follows a standard
PCE WG procedure. By saying a standard procedure, I mean that "stateful PCE"
should be driven by applicability/framework/requirements, then protocol
extensions. Just to give a few examples which is currently listed as PCE WG
drafts as well as RFCs: pcep extension for gmpls, inter-layer, hierarchical PCE
and P2MP etc. All of them moved forward with
applicability/framework/requirements first. There must be a valid reason for
this rationale, right? I do not see why we should treat this draft as an
exception.
Unfortunately, we were not given sufficient time for a WG discussion on our
proposal. However, as suggested by Ed., a bunch of us (Ramon, Oscar, Fatai,
Young and me) had an offline discussion with him, and the group roughly agreed
to move forward to the direction that we proposed above.
However, I don’t see this draft is moving to that direction from the
updated WG draft, even though one of our suggestions (i.e., GMPLS should be
covered) is partially captured in the updated WG draft.
Therefore, I would like to request more discussion in the PCE list on how
to move forward stateful PCE topic.
Regards,
Xian
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: 2012年10月16日 6:08
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the
IETF.
Title : PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE
Author(s) : Edward Crabbe
Jan Medved
Ina Minei
Robert Varga
Filename : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt
Pages : 49
Date : 2012-10-15
Abstract:
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the
information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for
synchronization or PCE control of timing and sequence of path
computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document
describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of
MPLS-TE and GMPLS tunnels via PCEP.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
