Hi Fatal, On 10/25/12 9:39 PM, "Fatai Zhang" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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. Ed in his email gave good reasons why we think that MPLS and GMPLS objects should be defined in separate drafts. Another reason may be that if in the future we need to support yet another tunneling technology, the core protocol & documents do not have to change. > >BTW, we usually prefer to generalize something in a draft/RFC, when it >could be generalized. That's a somewhat generalized point of view ;-) > >More comments from WG are appreciated. > Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
