Hi, So far in the PCE WG, we have a separate ID for -
- Stateful PCE (passive / active) - Stateful PCE with Initiation Capability Base http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-10.txt http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02.txt GMPLS http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-01.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00 So for P2MP, we followed the same approach, and thus - http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-05.txt http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-04.txt Now that work is making consistent progress, Does the WG find this separation useful? I remember in earlier discussion it was pointed out that not all implementation of PCE support PCE-Initiation function so they would prefer a separate documents to claim support fully. If you have any comments on the content of the drafts, do sent them on the list. Hoping to see this work adopted soon :) Dhruv _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
