Hi Adrian,
Based on the evolution of this thread, it looks like it leaves us with
the following guidelines:
- The case by case basis looks reasonable and should prevail;
- Extensions should focus on what is (eventually) useful;
- The scope of each work should be explicitly mentioned in I-Ds.
I hope this is an acceptable answer to your question.
Regards,
Julien
Apr. 07, 2016 - [email protected]:
> I think you are probably right, Dhruv. > > > > But referencing the
ways in which customers deploy may be a little > limiting. > > To say
PCE is widely deployed (even after all these years) may be an >
exaggeration. > > Although we do have some clues about what is currently
being pushed > for deployment. > > > > I think you have mainly grasped
my point, however. We need to > understand which extensions are
definitely only needed in one mode or > another, and which should be
done in all modes (either because they > are needed or because we don't
know). > > > > OTOH, I suppose TLVs are just TLVs. Once you specified
the TLV it is > not rocket science to include it in a message. In fact,
it is > probably one line of text to include it and only a short
paragraph to > describe additional processing in other modes once you
have described > how it is used in one mode. > > > > Where does that
leave us? > > > > Adrian > > > > *From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Dhruv Dhody *Sent:* 06
April 2016 23:07 > > > > 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] > <mailto:[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
