Re: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Thu, 08 March 2007 19:54 UTC

Return-path: <pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPOgk-0001ae-Tx; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:54:10 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPOgk-0001aZ-75 for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:54:10 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPOgg-0004mS-Md for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:54:10 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.79]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2007 11:54:06 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,264,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="398857315:sNHT47824616"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-5.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l28Js5fD027439; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:54:05 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l28JrPxx007022; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 19:54:05 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:53:52 -0500
Received: from [161.44.113.82] ([161.44.113.82]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:53:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <45EF68B5.3030501@redback.com>
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE071BB0F7@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr> <45EE12F8.9040902@redback.com> <82DA0B86-6482-430B-959A-8342B5C5E0E4@cisco.com> <45EF68B5.3030501@redback.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <31A3D4FE-19C9-4A4B-82E2-D20B258B354E@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:53:49 -0500
To: Wenhu Lu <luw@redback.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2007 19:53:52.0236 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F174AC0:01C761BB]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2054; t=1173383645; x=1174247645; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim5002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Pce]=20draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt |Sender:=20; bh=bRVSCnpaxTRcaV00ebFbTWRzfqneAGhrodBEJaxkbJ4=; b=H+rHMxF+xt0c8xe0IMVKerSmw0u6ZiZe+k77uZT1NysOMKsItKzsFjBeOdyJvXk6JZhPYkgF ziI9FDgRDlkSG5LMTgZNPK8qKIi68SUxOslpLtsm9HgvITeiJq2lWJYJ;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-5; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim5002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Cc: pce@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On Mar 7, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Wenhu Lu wrote:

> JP Vasseur wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Wenhu Lu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jean-Louis,
>>>
>>> It came to my attention that the acronym PCEP was used throughout  
>>> this draft
>>> whereas the acronym PCECP was used in drafts such as this one -
>>>
>>> _PCE Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for  
>>> Inter-Area Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized  
>>> MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering <http://www.ietf.org/internet- 
>>> drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt> (26301 bytes)._
>>>
>>> Are these two acronyms going to converge at some time?
>>>
>>
>> The term PCECP is used in the requirement drafts because they  
>> refer to requirements for *a* PCE Communication Protocol: PCEP is  
>> the protocol that has been defined.
>>
>> Hope this clarifies.
> Thank you JP, point taken.
> I'm a little bit concerned about the symmetries of PCED and PCEP.
> It's not as easy in relating "Communication" to PCEP as "Discovery"  
> to PCED.
> Maybe I missed something.
>

Not sure to see what you're concerned about ?

JP.

> Regards,
> -wenhu
>>
>> JP.
>>> Regards,
>>> -wenhu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This new draft defines PCED and PCEP extensions for the encoding  
>>>> of objective functions.
>>>> We are waiting for WG feedback/comments.
>>>>
>>>> _http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt_
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> JL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pce mailing list
>>>> Pce@lists.ietf.org <mailto:Pce@lists.ietf.org>
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pce mailing list
>>> Pce@lists.ietf.org <mailto:Pce@lists.ietf.org>
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce