Re: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-01.txt

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Cyril has made it pretty clear. I just want to add that,  the function needed for draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey is to resolve path key.  So as long as mechanisms can fulfill this, it works. Definitely using a PCE is a good and obvious example which is included in the draft, but it is NOT the only mechanism, as explained in the updated draft text quoted below.

Regards,
Xian

From: Cyril Margaria [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 2014年2月21日 6:57
To: Zafar Ali (zali)
Cc: Zhangxian (Xian); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-01.txt

Hi Zafar,
This is described in the section 2.2
"
If it cannot decode the PKS, the error handling procedure defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC5553]<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5553#section-3.1> is not changed by this document. This mechanism can work with all the PKS resolution mechanism, as detailed in [RFC5553] section 3.1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5553#section-3.1>. A PCE, co-located or not, may be used to resolve the PKS, but the node (i.e., a Label Switcher Router(LSR)) can also use the PKS information to index a Path Segment previously supplied to it by the entity that originated the PKS, for example the LSR that inserted the PKS in the RRO or a management system

"

The document could also state :

PKS resolution MAY take any of the forms described in RFC5553 section 3.1. In addition the LSR


can also use the PKS information to index a Path Segment previously supplied to it by the entity
that originated the PKS. This can be, for example, the LSR that inserted the PKS in the RRO or a

   management system.



Would that answer your question?






On 20 February 2014 23:45, Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

From: Cyril Margaria <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:43 PM

To: zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-ccamp-route-exclusion-pathkey-01.txt

The document does propose a simple set of extension that works (but are not restricted to, nor require) with another standard IETF protocol, namely PCEP.

Can you please qualify this statement? Without PCE (PCEP) this solution does not work.

Thanks

Regards… Zafar