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

[Cyril Margaria <[e-mail]>]

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]> wrote:

>
>    From: Cyril Margaria <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:43 PM
>
> To: zali <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [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
>
>
>