All, I read the draft this morning and have no objections, per se. There is obviously a lot of editorial work to be done, but that is fine and normal at this stage.
The main challenge I found was determining exactly what the purpose of the extensions was. I would welcome a clearer statement up front about why these extensions are needed and what they will enable to happen. I didn't really get this until reading Section 3 and then 5.1. Nit to fix soonish. In 2.1 you have "priority >= p" forgetting the joy in RFC 3209 that the highest priority has the lowest numeric value. Thanks, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: 13 December 2018 13:05 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
