Hi Loa: Thanks for the support.
Yes, it fills in support for "G"-mpls gaps in draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp, including LSPs for switching types listed by you. Section 2 of the document list along these lines but we can more clarity in future version. Thanks Regards Š Zafar -----Original Message----- From: Loa Andersson <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 8:12 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? > >Working Group, > >I support the adaoption of this document since it addresses a real >problem and provide a very good starting point for solving this problem. > >The document is not entirely clear when it comes to defining "GMPLS >LSP", I assume that a GMPLS LSP includes LSPs whith one of the >switching types listed in the IANA registry: > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters. >xhtml#gmpls-sig-parameters-3 >/Loa > > > >On 2014-03-04 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: >> Dear WG, >> >> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support >>for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt >> as a PCE WG. >> >> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >>adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG >>document ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP and Julien. >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > >-- > > >Loa Andersson email: [email protected] >Senior MPLS Expert [email protected] >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
