Dear PCE WG,
Considering the concerns discussed on the list after the 1st WG Last
Call, especially about the backward compatibility of the additional TLV
(please see Jon's change list), this message starts a 2nd LC on
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-06. It will end on Monday December 4.
Thanks for
As co-author - yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 00:32, Julien Meuric wrote:
>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
> Considering the concerns discussed on the list after the 1st WG Last
> Call, especially about the backward compatibility of the additional TLV
> (please
Hi WG,
The minutes are uploaded at https://datatracker.ietf.org/
doc/minutes-100-pce/
Please let me know if there are any comments.
Thanks!
Dhruv
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
I'm OK with downgrading the "must" to a "may" (in lowercase).
Cheers
Jon
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: 19 November 2017 14:43
To: 'Julien Meuric' ; 'Dhruv Dhody'
; Jonathan Hardwick
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
Title : PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength
Assignment
Authors : Young Lee
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
Title : Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
Authors : Siva Sivabalan
Jeff
Dear PCE WG
This new revision of the LSP setup type draft makes the following changes.
1) Added a capability TLV for the OPEN object and rules for processing it, as
discussed in the attached thread. This is to address Julien's WGLC comment that
there was no way for a PCEP speaker to express
This new revision brings draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing in-line with the new
LSP-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV just published in
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-06.
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 20 November 2017 15:01
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the update.
One comment regarding this paragraph:
"If the peer has sent no PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, then the PCEP
speaker MUST infer that the peer supports path setup using at least
RSVP-TE. The PCEP speaker MAY also infer that the peer supports
other path