Dear all,
"Encouraged" by our beloved WG co-chair Julien ;-) we have submitted a
new I-D that discusses the issues that we have recently mentioned in the
list, concerning the implementation of a set of PCEP extensions and the
problems we have identified (such as Errata, object ordering and naming
issues, lack of consistency, ambiguous grammars, etc.).
Although the final objective would be to facilitate interoperability and
to clarify the integration of independent normative documents by
publishing an informational document, right now our main goal is to
document the identified issues in published RFCs (and other also
relevant drafts), and to clearly state the motivations behind this work.
We have requested a 5 min slot to present them to the working group and
to get feedback about WG potential interest.
Note that, although there are already some suggestions within the
document, our intention is to include get feedback by other implementors
and work towards an agreement about the suggested RBNF notation.
Feedback and comments welcome,
Thanks and best regards
Ramon of behalf of authors and contributors.
-------- Mensaje original --------
Asunto: New Version Notification for draft-cmfg-pce-pcep-grammar-00.txt
Fecha: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 02:36:37 -0700
De: [email protected]
Para: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
<[email protected]>, Cyril Margaria <[email protected]>, Ramon
Casellas <[email protected]>
A new version of I-D, draft-cmfg-pce-pcep-grammar-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ramon Casellas and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename: draft-cmfg-pce-pcep-grammar
Revision: 00
Title: Current issues with existing RBNF notation for PCEP messages
and extensions
Creation date: 2013-07-08
Group: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 17
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cmfg-pce-pcep-grammar-00.txt
Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cmfg-pce-pcep-grammar
Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cmfg-pce-pcep-grammar-00
Abstract:
The PCEP protocol has been defined in [RFC5440] and later extended in
several RFCs. This document aims at documenting inconsistencies when
implementing a set of extensions and at providing a reference,
complete and formal RBNF grammar for PCEP messages, including object
ordering and precedence rules.
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
