1.1. Administrivia, Agenda Bashing (chairs, 5 min) [5/90]
1.2. WG Status (chairs, 10 min) [15/90]
2. GMPLS and Optical Networks
2.1. PCEP Requirements and Extensions for GMPLS (Cyril Margaria, 10 min) [25/90]
Julien: We will start with requirement document, please make sure you review and send comments to the list.
Julien: Solutions draft, how about GMPLS with PSC
Cyril: Ok, I think it covers it. I will perform a quick check.
2.2. PCEP Requirements and Extensions for WSON (Young Lee, 10 min) [35/90]
Young: Ready for LC.
JP: Any opposition?
JP: take to list.
Julien: I believe there are inconstancies with GMPL
document, please align your document with GMPLS generic part.
Young: I am not sure we have inconsistencies.
Julien: Some part of it should be updated. For instance, you do not use generic (wavelength constraints).
2.3. PCEP Extensions for Optical Impairments (Young Lee, 5 min) [40/90]
Lou: One comment, publishing framework, but no details on solutions.
Old draft on impairment details, if PCE is working on impairments it should be
aligned. Seeing statement that says its
done, is a slight overstatement.
Julien: We agree.
Malcolm: Reservations on impairment work. Rather discuss in one group, in CCAMP.
3.1. PCEP MIB (Jon Hardwick, 8 min) [48/90]
Dhruv: In P2MP draft, we have suggestions for the PCEP
Jon: Sure. Will take a look.
3.2. Update on Other MIB Modules (WG / 2 min) [50/90]
4. Stateful PCE
4.1. PCEP Extensions for Stateful Control (Jan Medved / Ed Crabbe, 5 min) [55/90]
4.2. Stateful Applicability and PCEP Extensions for GMPLS (Xian Zhang, 10 min) [65/90]
Ed: Your applicability draft is in good shape, we would like
to add some things. Re: Merge, we would like to discuss but we are looking to
create a framework. A few comments, lack of active/passive description, passive
uses req/resp, active
synchronous update system. With regards to time based, interesting for
inter-domain, it does not prescribe timeframe, chance path is sub-optimal, you’re basically reserving capacity in advance. It looks
like you need synchronized time state. RWA stuff, it seems like a stretch for
stateful, not sure what the intent was.
Cyril: In Extensions for me it seems directly comp to existing drafts. I would expect this as a comment to inter-layer.
Nitin: LSP setup, not setup, send request 5min, 5hr, etc. Complicated scenarios.
Young: PCE server, current draft is addressing. Not in the device.
Ed; Confusing uses PCREQ message.
Unknown: Difficult for PCE to update scheduling.
5.1. Domain Sequence Encoding (Dhruv Dhody / Ramon Casellas, 10 min) [75/90]
Adrian: As contributor, when we add sub-objects for PCEP, we lockstep with RSVP-TE.
5.2. PCEP Extensions for H-PCE (Oscar Gonzales de Dios, 5 min) [80/90]
Julien: Maybe policy is not enough.
Julien: One comment, need to update draft name to reflect actual name/functionality.
6. Beyond Shortest Path
6.1. PCEP Extensions for Service-Aware LSPs (Dhruv Dhody, 5 min) [85/90]
JP: Who has read the draft? 5 people.
Julien: Try to trigger discussion with OSPF and ISIS folks.
6.2. PCE Applicability for FRR Border Node Protection (Dhruv Dhody, 5 min) [90/90]
JP: Do people want to mix FRR with PathKey?
Dhruv: Should we relax merge point? Yes/No?
Adrian Farrel: A solution already exists. Think about it.
JP: Exactly what I said to Julien.