Hi, [Please respond on [email protected] even though I am spamming several lists]
Thanks for the input on this topic. I heard a number of opinions about whether to split TE architecture away from RSVP-TE. I think this leads to some roughish consensus as follows: TEAS - core RSVP-TE - RSVP-TE for generic cases - IGP-TE extensions in coordination with IGP WGs - TE architecture - including the applicability of PCE for TE in association with PCE WG - relationships with - OSPF and ISIS as above - PCE as above - MPLS for generalisation of packet-specific protocol extensions - CCAMP for generalisation of non-packet-specific protocol extensions CCAMP - non-packet technology-specific RSVP-TE - non-packet technology-specific IGP-TE in association with IGP WGs - consideration to generalise all protocol extensions via TEAS That leaves... MPLS as it is today, except: - All RSVP-TE work that is not technology-specific for packet goes to TEAS - Any TE architecture work goes to TEAS PCE as it is today, except: - Architectural application of PCE for TE goes to TEAS with coord back to PCE Can you please let me know whether I misheard you badly. Is this a split you can live with? Are there show-stopper issues? Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
