Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability)

[Ramon Casellas <[e-mail]>]

On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote:
> Hi Ramon, All,
>
> We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include
> "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As usual
> though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments are
> clearly required.

Dear Dan, all

You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when 
it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I 
was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?.

For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the 
draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them 
and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so 
bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained 
:-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what 
is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue?


> The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is
> interesting, but the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly
> has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled.
I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv?


>
> 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence
> representation? If so, then I agree
FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE 
computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working 
with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce, 
and md-p2mp )


> 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution?
If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :).

> 3. Should we adopt as a WG document?
Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can 
wait until it is further discussed and matures.


Thanks for your comments
R