Subject: Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:33 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: zali <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:18 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00

>>I think the document has good material, but address several separated
>>points :
>>1.      Active Stateful PCE Applicability
>>2.      MPLS multi-layer aspects
>>3.      GMPLS (GENERALIZED-BW and SWITCH-LAYER)
>>
>>I think the second point may have a document on its own, but the first
>>and third point  could be managed by merges.
>
>Like mentioned above, we are open to document rearrangement(s), if it
>simplify the process. At the moment this work is outside the scope of WG
>charter. I am sure in due time we will have more of such discussion and
>opinion from the WG. There are example where WG liked to keep GMPLS
>extensions separate from (packet) MPLS work.

Hi Margaria- 

Now that this is a chartered item, let's close on your comments.

We will update the document based on your comments received under this
thread. However, document restructuring also requires agreement from
authors/ drivers for the other drafts.

- (3) in above require merger of related text to
draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp.
- (1) requires merger to stateful PCE draft.

Let's use this email to solicit feedback for authors of these draft if
they agree to the merge. I am fine, either-way but have a feeling that
separate document may remain a reality.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar