Hi Zhang, Thanks. It very clearly mentions Errata is only an option. :) Like I mentioned we have discussed thiw about 2 years back, and you can look at the archives for some of the details.
-Vishwas On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:54 PM, <zhang.f...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > > Hi Ramon, Vishwas > > I think the WG prefer to use RFC errata, > Please check the presentation material "WG status" in IETF81 > > > > *Ramon Casellas <ramon.casel...@cttc.es>* > 发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org > > 2011-08-03 08:01 > 收件人 > Vishwas Manral <vishwas.i...@gmail.com> > 抄送 > pce@ietf.org > 主题 > Re: [Pce] PCE port number > > > > > El 03/08/2011 1:51, Vishwas Manral escribió: > > It very clearly is the case of a new draft required, we can expedite > > this through the IETF processes so that it is made an RFC soon. > I guess I am not knowledgeable enough about best/current IETF-related > practices & procedures, so I will humbly step back and let others decide > :) (chairs?) > > > Let me know if you are willing to help writing the draft. I think it > > is a necessary requirement that will help the PCE community, which I > > only see growing. > If this is the case, gladly, although I guess it would be a one-page > "Updates" RFC? > R. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > >
<<image/gif>>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
