On 02/02/2016 04:21 PM, Jonathan Hardwick wrote: > Hi Robert Hello Jon.
sorry for the delay, PCE work has been on the back burner :-( > (I’m answering as WG chair.) > > > > Sorry for the slow reply. I would expect the progress of > draft-ietf-pce-pceps through to RFC to be reasonably fast, so I’m not > sure early code point allocation should be needed. The main risk would > be a conflict with the stateful PCE drafts, should the new message in > the PCEPS draft be allocated a clashing code point with the values that > the stateful drafts have “recommended” for their messages. I agree. > I think it is possible that PCEPS will leap-frog stateful PCE on the way > to RFC, so I think the best way to proceed is to obtain an early > allocation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce and > draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp. To do this we would only require help > from the stateful draft authors (e.g. you) to answer any questions that > IANA has about your text (which would happen sooner or later anyway > :-). Would you like us to start an early allocation for these drafts? I think this is a fair assessment. I can answer any questions and an early allocation would be an excellent way of ensuring we do not get clashes. Thanks, Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
