Hi, Dhruv: Yes, support its adoption. I think the extension can give more spaces to describe the future state of LSP. One question, is it necessary to be variable length? How to keep align when the bit position is fixed but the length is variable?
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Feb 16, 2021, at 19:29, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > > > 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> 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
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
