Hi Margaria: Sorry for delayed response. Please see in-line.
Thanks Regards Š Zafar -----Original Message----- From: <Margaria>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:44 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Oscar de Dios <[email protected]>, VICTOR ALVAREZ <[email protected]>, zali <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:44 AM >Hi, > >I have the following comments on the draft. >1. Abstract : you are not only addressing GMPLS, but also >multi-layer Yes. >2. Section 1 "Introduction" : This is good you reference RFC6107, >which defined this object for "MPLS and GMPLS", the multilayer extensions >are not GMPLS specific, I think this should be either separated or put in >an "active stateful PCE" solution (Which could be a merge of your >document and draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp) We would be open to document rearrangement(s), if it simplify the process. But from applicability view point, you are right this aspect is equally applicable to both MPLS and GMPLS initiated LSPs (as noted in the draft). >3. Section 2 : There is already 2 applicability documents, I think >those use case should be integrated there, especially as I find them good. Again we are open to document rearrangement in favor of simplification of the process. >4. Section 3 : this lists match the requierement of the >draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req, you could simply refer to it and the >solution document. We can put in a reference. >5. Section 4 : this is RFC6107 related, this is non-GMPLS specific Correct. This is equally applicable to MPLS and GMPLS LSPs. >6. Section 5.1 : I should say I disagree : it is not required to >have generalized endpoints, RFC5440 ENDPOINTS are sufficient, especially >if you want to create an FA. Moreoever draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp >already support this object and thus the GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS OT. Unnum end-point TLV may be a gap but it will be great to have an offline chat on this at IETF or via email. >7. Section 5.1 : I think there is a misunderstanding : the >label-request in the endpoint is NOT the one of the LSP to be signaled. >This is addressed by the SWITCH_LAYER >8. Section 5.2 : I think this is the only needed optional object. Not sure if I followed you. >9. Section 5.3 : If no modification is needed, I think it would be >better to state it in a section describing the missing information from >draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp or any other solution) Sure- >10. Section 5.4 : As the PCEP ERO is an RSVP ERO , this section seems >more applicability/framework related. The point is that this needs to be covered. >11. Section 6 : this is RFC6107 related, this is non-GMPLS specific Correct. This is equally applicable to MPLS and GMPLS. > >I think the document has good material, but address several separated >points : >1. Active Stateful PCE Applicability >2. MPLS multi-layer aspects >3. GMPLS (GENERALIZED-BW and SWITCH-LAYER) > >I think the second point may have a document on its own, but the first >and third point could be managed by merges. Like mentioned above, we are open to document rearrangement(s), if it simplify the process. At the moment this work is outside the scope of WG charter. I am sure in due time we will have more of such discussion and opinion from the WG. There are example where WG liked to keep GMPLS extensions separate from (packet) MPLS work. > > >Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards >Cyril Margaria > >Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH >St.Martin-Str. 76 >D-81541 München >Germany >mailto:[email protected] >Phone: +49-89-5159-16934 >Fax: +49-89-5159-44-16934 >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH >Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Gero Neumeier, Dr. Rolf Nauerz >Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich >Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 197143 > > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
