Subject: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:07:17 +0530

Dear PCErs, 

We have updated the Domain Sequence draft and closed all open issues as
discussed in the Taipei meeting. 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/?includ
e_text=1

This includes Domain Sequence Encoding, Boundary Nodes and Inter-AS links,
Mode of operations and handling for all inter-domain path computation
techniques. 

Request the WG to provide comments, We would hope the document would be
considered for WG adoption. 

Regards,

Dhruv, Udaya & Ramon

****************************************************************************
***
Dhruv Dhody, System Architect, Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India, Ph.
+91-9845062422

This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed
above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including,
but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or
dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!

---

From: "POUYLLAU, HELIA (HELIA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:38:40 +0100

Dear all,

We submitted a new version of the draft some months ago and received no feedback by now althought we integrated most of the comments received previously. We would like also the draft ot be considered for WG adoption so please give a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouyllau-pce-enhanced-errors-03 and  provide us feedback on the specific concerns that was addressed by:
- section 4: Error-type and Notification-type are replaced by TLVs : a  TLV to indicate the criticity level of errors, a TLV to indicate the type of notification (request-specific or not), a TLV to specify if the message must be propagate or not. The propagation of critical errors that consequently close the PCEP session is still feasible (we aim to cover all the behaviors) but optional by the introduction of a medium level of criticity.
- section 5.3: specify the rules of TLV usages with the error and notification types defined in RFC 5440, 5441, 5455, 5521, 5557, 5886 and 6006.
- section 6: Error and notification scenarios have been reformulated and focus on a sub-set of behaviors.

BR
Helia Pouyllau