Yes/Support. The usage of flags in PCEP needs to be carefully managed, and the LSP-based extension is an essential step to move forward.
Best wishes, Haomian 发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Dhruv Dhody 发送时间: 2021年2月16日 19:28 收件人: pce@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Hi WG, We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is a straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit expressions of support (and comments). We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your support (or not) for this adoption. Regards, Dhruv & Julien On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote: Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Monday 15th Feb. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
