Hi, Thank you for the answer. But I still think any optimization application draft should refer to the others, even if it is only one sentence to say that there are no dependencies. Also, since each optimization application draft will probably propose similar extensions to PCEP, it would be better, at least from an implementation point of view, to generalize these extensions instead of making them application specific.
Cordially, Meral Selon JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Meral, > > On Jun 11, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > > > Hi, > > I would support this draft based on its content, but I only see one > > problem: it > > does not consider or even refer to draft-ietf-pce-brpc-04.txt (or > > maybe I > > missed it?). > > I would rather see a single draft covering all possible optimization > > scenarios/solutions based on the PCE architecture. > > > > BRPC is a multi-PCE path computation technique used to compute a > shortest constrained > inter-domain path wheres this ID specifies a (preferably) NMS based > technique where a > set of path computation requests are bundled and send to a PCE with > the objective of > "optimizing" the set of computed paths. > > > Having several IDs for optimization applications is ok as long as > > they refer to > > each other and maybe provide an <inter-working> section between the > > different > > methods. > > There is no real reason for referring to each other since there is no > dependency. > > Thanks. > > JP. > > > > > Cordially, > > Meral > > > > > > > > Selon JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> Dear WG, > >> > >> Do you support the adoption of draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent- > >> optimization-04.txt as a Working Group document ? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> JP. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pce mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >> > > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
