Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01?

Hi,

In favor.

A few comments for clarification below (which can be addressed after
making it a WG document).

o Section 2 (message format) refers RFC 5440, but the content is more
related to P2MP (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-11.txt). It would
be good to have an appropriate reference.

o Section 2.2 says "label restrictions on endpoint". I am wondering what
this is used for. It it for egress control (RFC4003) or fixed/restricted
wavelength tunable capability at the termination point in WSON?

o Section 2.2.2.5 says:

   The REQ-ADAP-CAP object from [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext] can be
   used in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it
   is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is
   better to have a dedicated TLV for the label (the scope is then more
   clear).

  Not sure what this means.

Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda

Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> During the PCE meeting in Maastricht, we had a consensus in the room in 
> favor of adopting draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01 as WG 
> document. Considering that we already have the GMPLS requirements as WG 
> draft and that it is a foundation for any WSON work which might follow 
> the GMPLS extensions in CCAMP, now it is time to express your minds on 
> this list.
> 
> Do you support the adoption of 
> draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01 as WG document?
> 
> Properly argued answered are always valuable, especially in case of 
> "no". As you are going to review the I-D before answering, any comments 
> you will send to improve its content are very welcome.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Julien
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> 
> 