Cyril and I had an offline conversation about these comments. This email is to
document the discussion for the benefit of the mailing list. See [JEH-MC]
comments below.
We have one question for the WG, as follows. If anyone has an opinion on this,
please could you provide it to the mailing
On 07/30/2013 11:08 AM, Jonathan Hardwick wrote:
Cyril and I had an offline conversation about these comments. This
email is to document the discussion for the benefit of the mailing
list. See *[JEH-MC]* comments below.
We have one question for the WG, as follows. If anyone has an
Hi all,
I think a new object type could be better and simple.
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Ramon Casellas
发送时间: 2013年7月30日 17:32
收件人: Jonathan Hardwick; pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-08
On 07/30/2013
El 30/07/2013 18:33, Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich) escribió:
Hi PCE WG,
3)Treat this as an errata to RFC5440 ““The BANDWIDTH *of OT 1 and OT
2* object body have a fixed length of 4 bytes.”, and define new OT
for GMPLS
PCErs, all
Rather than Errata :) consider it a liberal
Hi, Ramon, Cyril all,
I second this solution.
Defining new C-type can also keep the current protocol and implementation
untouched. But we need to loose the restriction of bandwidth object in
RFC5440 first.
Besides, IMHO, the solution allowing TLVs can better help the path
computation
