Hi Young, Yes, CSO was somewhat in our mind our mind as we wrote this, and you'll see one of the use-cases is about virtual topology which is part of the puzzle.
Maybe you or Dhruv would like to suggest some text for a CSO use case? Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Leeyoung > Sent: 06 December 2012 23:38 > To: Daniel King; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pce] A new draft on an architecture for application-based network > operations > > Hi Dan, > > I support your draft to be considered in the PCE WG especially in light of a > potential PCE WG re-chartering discussion. > > There was a related draft that Dhruv presented in a previous PCE WG meeting. > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-cso-enabled-path- > computation/ > > I think some ideas from Dhruv's draft can be integrated together with yours. > > Best Regards, > Young > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel > King > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 4:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Pce] A new draft on an architecture for application-based network > operations > > Hi PCE'rs, > > Adrian and I posted an I-D which is a rather grandiose attempt to pull > together a number of existing architectural components (PCE, VNTM, I2RS, > policy, etc., etc.). This is a sort of meta-SDN PCE-based architect-thingy. > It needed a name, so we called it Application-Based Network Operations > (ABNO), warning it's not house trained and may answer to various other > names: > > A PCE-based Architecture for Application-based Network Operations > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-00 > > As some of you will know this is the result of numerous discussions we have > had with a number of people over the last three months. Where pieces of the > puzzle seem to have been coagulating, we thought it might be nice to build a > framework in which the jelly (jello) can set. It is at a really early stage, > so we are convinced you will all throw stuff at us, but what the hell! > > As it stands, the current draft includes: > > - A brief description of abstraction functional components and the > interfaces between them. > - An attempt to supply pointers to existing work (tool kit) where that may > be applicable and there are some use case examples to give a feel for how it > all works. > - Various ABNO use cases. > > A number of areas need further discussion, especially the use cases. We > decided to submit with the few we do have, in order to generate some > feedback - anyone who wants to supply use case(s) and text, would receive > hero status. > > We have pitched the document as a PCE working group document because PCE is > a central component, but the document doesn't really fall inside the PCE > charter. For the time being it might be best to send comments direct to us > rather than clutter up any WG mailing list with discussions that are outside > the charter (but if some WG chair wants to claim the work, then...) > > Thanks, > Dan and Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
