Subject: RE: [Pce] Requirement for less-constrained pathindraft-ietf-pce-c omm-protocol-gen-reqs-00.txt

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:08:49 -0400

JP,
 
    Thanks for clarifying this.
 
--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: JP Vasseur [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 7:47 AM
To: Gray, Eric
Cc: 'LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN'; Igor Bryskin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pce] Requirement for less-constrained pathindraft-ietf-pce-c
omm-protocol-gen-reqs-00.txt

Hi Eric,

/ Chair Hat /

On Jul 25, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Gray, Eric wrote:

I think the point here is that there was absolutely no consensus to include
this in the
PCE protocol requirements.
 
One of the WG chairs - JP - asked if this should be included.  A highly
polar discussion
followed in which several people weighed in against doing so.

Indeed, I asked to the WG whether there was a need for such capability.

The fact that it may seem like a good idea to the author(s) is insufficient
reason to put
it in the draft, once the draft has become a working group document.

Correct, no WG consensus has been reached on this issue as of now. Several
ones were opposed to it, several other ones were in favor.

Therefore, lacking overwhelming indications that a consensus does exist to
put it in the
working group's draft, the author(s) should remove it.

Here is the plan:
(1) Ask for a vote within the WG on this issue. I would suggest some
discussion in Paris followed by discussion on the mailing list. The next
revision of the protocol requirement will reflect the WG consensus on this
particular aspect.
(2) For the next revision, the authors of the PCEP spec mentioned that they
would remove the "less-constrained path computation" from the PCEP
specification. "Less-constrained path computation" aspects will potentially
be discussed in another ID, should there be a WG consensus.

Note that I would like us to make progress of the basic functionalities
first (such as the PCE requirement ID, architecture, PCE communication
protocol, ...) so as to meet our Milestones. More advanced features could be
discussed in a second step.

Thanks.

JP.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce