Hi, Yes to all. Cheers,
Zhang Renhai Hi, Resulting from the discussions in Montreal, we would like to take your opinions on the adoption of three I-Ds as working group drafts. draft-bitar-zhang-interas-pcecp-reqs-01.txt This draft sets out the requirements for PCEP in an inter-AS scenario. It has been refined considerably over the last couple of iterations and is now limited to just the requirements for this situation. We may need to do more work on it as a WG document, but the authors and chairs believe it is in good enough shape to be the basis of the WG work. draft-bryskin-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp-02.txt Policy forms part of the PCE architecture, and this document fleshes out the details of the use of policy in a PCE context. There was some discussion in Montreal about whether to wait to include details of policy for recovery path computation, but the chairs feel that this scenarion (and any other relevant scenarios) can be safely added once the I-D is a working group draft. Further, there was support from the service providers in the room in Montreal for adopting this I-D. draft-vasseur-pce-brpc-00.txt This draft describes an application procedure for PCE in the inter-domain case. There has been some discussion of this draft on the mailing list resulting in the request for a few clarifications of scope and procedure, and also an explicit mention of the Path Key ID option. Since JP is the lead author on this work, I think that the correct procedure is for JP to make a quick update before this becomes a WG I-D, but while we are polling I would like to ask your opinion on this I-D assuming that JP makes the necessary changes. Simple Yes and No answers will do, but reasons are always helpful. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
