Hi Jonathan, I think your proposal makes a lot of sense in light of multiple H-PCE implementations. I fully support this idea.
Related to this draft, we have presented in Yokohama and Buenos Aires the use of H-PCE in stateful PCE environment https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce-00 Would you suggest us how to proceed with this draft? I think we have sufficient interest on this work and have a few implementations underway. Thanks, Young (on behalf of other co-authors) From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 8:48 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] Moving draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions onto the standards track Dear PCE WG At the recent IETF meeting, the authors of the above document requested that the document be moved from Experimental status onto the standards track. This is in consequence of there now being multiple implementations of the H-PCE protocol extensions, and H-PCE becoming important for new applications like ACTN. Please see the meeting slides for details. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-pce-15.pdf https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions/ Please send an email to the list if you have any comments or objections to doing this, by Friday 12 August. If you do not reply, we will treat it as "no objection". Many thanks Jon, JP and Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
