I am happy to update RFC5088 and RFC5089 to allow advertisement of additional
PCE information carried in the Router Capability TLV if this is the agreement.
-Qin
-邮件原件-
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2018年11月16日 21:18
收件人: Qin Wu; julien.meu...@orange.com;
Hi all,
Dave, thank you for this careful review. Though I'd by fine to liaise to
ITU-T SG15 for information, I'm not that sure that our process requires
liaising "for review": PCEP isn't a controversial technology which would
need special treatment with respect to ITU-T. How strong do you feel on
I tend to agree with Julien.
More eyes are always welcome, and sending a liaison statement or informal email
pointing to the work and asking for feedback (from individuals not an official
position of the ITU-T) on the PCE list before the end of last call (maybe IETF
last call?) could not
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 Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth
Adjustment with Stateful PCE
Authors : Dhruv
I agree with you both. My comment was imprecise with the level of formality
intended. The intent was to make SG15 aware of this work given that many of
the parameters and operations discussed and the target types of networks (i.e.,
OTN, WSON) would be of interest to that community. I wasn't
