IETF-88 PCE Session
6 November 2013 (1300-1530)
2. PCEP Extensions to Compute Service-Aware LSPs
3.1. Stateful PCE Applicability
3.2. PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE and PCE-Initiated LSPs
3.3. PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE and GMPLS LSPs
3.4.a. PCEP Extensions for Remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs
3.4.b. PCEP Extensions for Remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs
3.5. Conveying Path Setup Types in PCEP
3.6. PCE Path Profiles
3.7. Use Cases for PCE as Central Controller
3.8. Application-oriented Stateful PCE Architecture and Use Cases
4.1. Secured Transport for PCEP
4.2. PCE Discovery Using DNS
4.3. PCEP Extensions for Receiving SRLG Information
5.1. TED Dissemination for Hierarchical PCE
5.2. PCEP Extensions for Link Bandwidth Utilization
5.3. PCE Support for Domain Diversity
5.4. PCEP Extensions for Cross-Domain Label Distribution
- Discovery, Core and P2MP MIBs will require an early MIB Dr Review, can be done prior to Last Call.
- Co-chair outlines that working group will not Last Call until IGP work has progressed.
- Co-chair request to please comment and discuss the document.
- Authors do not see significant changes and suggest the document is “stable”.
- Observation that the document has been reduced in size.
- A number of comments made regarding single or sets of documents related to PCE-Initiated LSP setup. Area Director (Adrian Farrel) provided some advice and a poll was conducted. The sense of the room was against merging MPLS and GMPLS documents, very few being opposed to 2 sets.
- Reminder to address questions on the mailing list.
- Co-chairs conducted an Adoption Poll, good support and the question will be taken to the list.
- A request for participants to review and comment on the working group list.
- No questions.
- A number of questions related to congestion, bandwidth availability, and co-ordination between layers. The response was a suggestion to move the discussion to the CCAMP working group.
- Questions remain if use cases for remote-initiated mechanism should appear in PCE Stateful Applicability I-D.
- Co-chair requested that the document scope needs to be clarified before progressing the document.
- Again, co-chair requested that the document needs further discussion and clarification.
- Document proposes a generic TLV for simultaneously support of more than one path setup type (in addition to RSVP-TE).
- Further documents will be required, to describe these other setup mechanisms.
- Discussion required to see if these Path Profiles will be well-defined, or Operator assigned?
- Co-chair requested further discussion on the list for the document.
- No questions.
- Questions to list as we are out of time.
- Currently out of charter, we need to complete recently chartered work (Stateful).
- Some support in the room for the work. A request not to provide too many options, which may over complicate the proposal.
- Request from the co-chair to circulate work with DNS experts within the IETF, and other relevant working groups.
- No time for further questions.
- Disagreement from some participants in the room who felt that policy discussion within CCAMP needs to be reflected.
- Suggestion to move the discussion to both the PCE and CCAMP list.
- No time for questions.
End of Session 15:30
No time for additional presentations, a request from the co-chair to email the list and point to the slides.