Hi Ramon and Julien, Thanks for your useful comments.
I agree with Julien and Ramon. We of course need to investigate which way is a preference for PCE WG. I think if it could integrate GMPLS, I would suggest moving to that direction, because GMPLS is generic and covers MPLS as what Julien said. BTW, we usually prefer to generalize something in a draft/RFC, when it could be generalized. More comments from WG are appreciated. Best Regards Fatai -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Ramon Casellas 发送时间: 2012年10月26日 2:38 收件人: Julien Meuric 抄送: [email protected] 主题: Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next steps El 25/10/2012 11:39, Julien Meuric escribió: > > One 1st comment at this stage: you seem to suggest that the idea is to > have separate document for MPLS-TE and GMPLS, but you do not give > rationale. Apart from our history of RFC 5440 + draft-ietf-pce-gmpls > (even with its scope, the former had a hard time), is there a > particular reason for this choice? Do you expect much difference > between those 2 kinds of extensions? Also keep in mind that GMPLS > includes PSC... > Dear Julien, all Thanks for the feedback, I understand your point about GMPLS and, if I recall correctly, one of the reasons mentioned in previous internal discussions was the relative maturity of one (RFC5440) with regard to the other (draft-ietf-pce-gmpls). We can indeed discuss the different alternatives during IETF85, with all the involved parties, authors, and the WG. Although, initially, I had a slight preference to integrate GMPLS, (as I mentioned a while ago in my review of Ed's earlier drafts), I am fine either way. Maybe Ed, Jan, Ina, Fatai, Young, Xian or Oscar can comment on this? Thanks and best regards, R. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
