Hi Adrian, Even in the brave new world of Stateful PCE, PCReq and PCRep messages do play a role in the passive stateful PCE mode. PCReq/PCRep also play a crucial role in the inter-domain and inter-layer context in the new proposal like stateful H-PCE.
At the same time mandating that every extension (say SFC) must also be specified in a stateless manner when no customer deploy in such a way, might be overkill. Perhaps we need to look at it case by case! Dhruv On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Once upon a time, in a working group far, far away, PCE was basically > stateless. > PCE acted in response to questions asked by PCCs. > > These days, everyone is excited by stateful PCEs and there is a lot of > initiation (of LSPs or of control of LSPs). > > In the jabber room during today's meeting Ravi noted that not a lot of the > new > drafts (maybe none of them) talk about PCReq messages. This raises the > question > in our minds as to whether stateless PCE is obsolete. > > If (and only if) this mode of PCE usage has gone out of fashion, we *might* > consider cleaning up the protocol and architecture so that we don't need > to make > protocol extensions to PCReq and PCRep messages when we make extensions to > PCInit messages. > > Thoughts? > > 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
