I am in favor to adopt it as a PCE WG document.
Quintin Zhao
--
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 20:27:39 +0100
From: JP Vasseur jvass...@cisco.com
Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-yasukawa-pce-vpn-req-05.txt as a new WG
Hello PCE'rs,
I would like to follow-up on some discussions from our PCE WG session last
month. Specifically regarding Dajiang's failure and recomputation
observations on our draft. We are very interested to hear comments regarding
the need for computing secondary paths in the event of failure.
or the optimized paths under the failure
condition are the best path which can be used for the recovery of the
failure while satisfying all the conditions.
Regards,
Quintin
-Original Message-
From: JP Vasseur [mailto:jvass...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:26 PM
To: Quintin Zhao
Cc
-Original Message-
From: Quintin Zhao [mailto:qz...@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 3:22 PM
To: 'julien.meu...@orange-ftgroup.com'
Cc: 'pce@ietf.org'; 'jvass...@cisco.com'
Subject: RE: Request WG Adoption of
draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures
Hi Julien,
Yes, we
Yes.
Quintin
? 2010-8-4???12:10? Julien Meuric ???
Hi all.
During the PCE meeting in Maastricht, we had a consensus in the room in
favor of adopting draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01 as WG
document. Considering that we already have the GMPLS requirements as WG
draft and that it
Hi Julien,
In order to get a good enough result instead of getting an optimal result
in the dynamic scenario,
we have mentioned a possible procedure in the last paragraph of section 7.2
from the current version of the draft,
where the transit PCEs should be configurable to control the number of
Yes/support!
Thanks,
Quintin
-Original Message-
From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien
Meuric
Sent: 20 September 2011 16:08
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-06
Hi PCE WG.
The framework for hierarchical PCE
I'm not aware of any IPR on this draft.
Thanks,
Quintin
-Original Message-
From: julien.meu...@orange.com [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 08 June 2012 15:42
To: Daniel King; Adrian Farrel; Quintin Zhao; Fatai Zhang
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce
Dear Dan and Adrian,
The draft is very good and is helpful coordinate PCE and TE technologies
between applications and network. I focused on some sections and have
following questions and suggestions.
(1) Applicability of ABNO Architecture.
Your document abstract and introduction
bulk request for services can be performed.
Thanks Quintin!
* To: 'Daniel King' daniel at olddog.co.uk
mailto:daniel@DOMAIN.HIDDEN , 'Quintin Zhao' quintin.zhao at
huawei.com mailto:quintin.zhao@DOMAIN.HIDDEN
* Subject: Re: [Pce] A new draft on an architecture
Adrian,
Thanks and I will be glad to join you and Dan to work on this.
Quintin
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:46:29 -
From: Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
To: 'Quintin Zhao
Julien and JP,
There is a new IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2004/) just
published for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-03. Please
pay note that the IPR license terms in the disclosure as we think they are
more favorable than FRAND.
We are very sorry that
Hi,
I believe that there is a need to document the applicability of Stateful PCE
. The latest version of draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app satisfies this
need.
Regards,
Quintin
From: pce-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: Saturday,
Udayasree,
The fragmentation is only for the request message only, see section 3.3.1 of
RFC 6006:
“The F-bit is added to the flag bits of the RP object to indicate to
the receiver that the request is part of a fragmented request, or is
not a fragmented request.”
There is no
: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:54 AM
To: pce@ietf.org; Quintin zhao; Katherine Zhao; dhruv.i...@gmail.com; Udayasree
palle; boris.zh...@telus.com; spr...@ietf.org
Cc: VinodS Kumar; Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
Subject: Mail regarding draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension
Dear Jon, JP, Julien, and Lou,
Thanks for your suggestions regarding the home for "PCE as Central Controller"
and we agree with you to discuss the PCE-CC related
requirements/use-cases/architecture in the TEAS working group and to discuss
the PCE-CC related PCE extensions in the PCE working
Hi Jon,
Great, a good review! This is really helpful. Will finalize the document based
on your comments, and most recent updates from Dhruv. Our plan is to submit the
new version very quickly. We will find someone to perform a final English
review as you suggest.
Thanks!
Quintin, and
Hello Chairs,
Yes, I am also aware of IPR which has been disclosed and updated in the IPR
system.
Thanks,
Quintin
-Original Message-
From: Daniel King [mailto:d...@danielking.net] On Behalf Of dan...@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 6:06 AM
To: Dhruv Dhody; 'Jonathan
Hi All,
No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Quintin
From: Daniel King [mailto:d...@danielking.net] On Behalf Of dan...@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 1:49 AM
To: 'Julien Meuric'; pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensi...@ietf.org
Subject:
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft.
Thanks,
Quintin
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:02 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for WG LC on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance
> with IETF
Hi Hari,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Thanks,
Quintin
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:17 AM Lizhenbin wrote:
> Hi Hari,
>
>
>
> I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
> disclosed in
21 matches
Mail list logo
