Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:05:11 +0100

Hi all,

Back in Prague, draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request raised clear
interest. Since then, the authors have done their homework, including
the removal of suggested values. Let us now share the question with the
whole WG: do you think draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request is a good
foundation for a PCE WG item?
Please send your responses to the PCE list, including rationales in case
of disagreement.

Thanks,

Jon & Julien

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:24:24 +0000

Support WG Adoption! 

Regards,
Dhruv (as a co-author)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> Sent: 22 January 2018 20:35
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Back in Prague, draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request raised clear interest.
> Since then, the authors have done their homework, including the removal of
> suggested values. Let us now share the question with the whole WG: do you
> think draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request is a good foundation for a PCE
> WG item?
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: Satish K <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:16:48 +0530

Hi All,

As a developer of PCEP/PCE in ONOS controller, where in especially in the
multi-instance, multi-cluster environment of ONOS, a particular instance
act as a master for few devices(PCC) and wish to take control of LSP's from
PCC. So i strongly support this for WG adaption.

Regards,
Satish.