Dear PCErs,
In the case of current Working Group stateful PCE solution
(draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02), the focus is mainly on the new functions to
be supported: Capability Negotiation, State Synchronization, LSP State Report
, LSP Control Delegation, LSP Update Request, etc All these set of functions
are independent whether it is a MPLS-TE or a GMPLS tunnel. Thus, I don't see
why the scope should be limited to MPLS-TE. Would those functions be different
in GMPLS and needed separate messages and objects, I would agree in separating
the solution. For example, in the current draft, there are very few objects
which are MPLS-TE specific. I have gone through the document several times to
see the points which could be different in GMPLS, and I could not find them
(maybe I miss something here, so If you think the number of specific MPLS-TE
/GMPLS objects will be significant, please give the examples). All the new
messages apply for both MPLS-TE and GMPLS, without the need of any change.
For other applications of the stateful PCE, GMPLS and MPLS-TE may go in
separate documents if there are many differences between them, and the
documents are cleaner with separate extensions.
"(in fact this is the case for Google; as a company we do not care about GMPLS,
we /do/ very much care about MPLS-TE.) "
Sorry, Ed, but the argument of a specific company position of what
cares or not is by no means acceptable. Please, limit the arguments to
technical and not political.
Best Regards,
Óscar
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
