Hi Quan, Focusing only on this one point...
> > > *Common comments to both DetNet drafts -- Perhaps it would be a good idea > to first list out all the requirements for PCEP. We could then get a > confirmation of those requirements from DetNet. I also note that both > drafts have different terminology.- PCE WG can then decide the best > strategy to encode this, where reusing the existing objects makes sense and > where defining a new one would be a better strategy.- We should take the > possible RSVP-TE signaling into consideration > Quan>This draft has been proposed in February and presented at 113 DetNet > meeting. The DetNet chair suggested me to bring this proposal to PCE WG as > well.Maybe we could list the requirement and extensions and then DetNet and > PCE could decide that it is important or not and which WG for this work to > progress. Welcome people who are interested in PCEP extensions for DetNet > to join us. > > The PCEP extension work belongs in the PCE WG. I just wanted to point you to the detnet charter that says - The Working Group coordinates with other relevant IETF Working Groups, including CCAMP, IPPM, LSR, PCE, PALS, TEAS, TSVWG, RAW, and 6TiSCH. As the work progresses, requirements may be provided to the responsible Working Group, e.g. PCE, TEAS, and CCAMP, with DetNet acting as a focal point to maintain the consistency of the overall architecture and related solutions. I was highlighting the need for clear requirements for PCEP which has the blessing of the DetNet WG. Thanks! Dhruv > * Hope this helps! Thanks! Dhruv > [Pce] draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-00 Dhruv Dhody > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
