Hi Chairs, I’ve read this document and support its adoption.
And here are my replies to the questions: Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Yes Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? PMTU is an important characteristic of the path, which needs to be considered in both path computation and path instantiation. What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Since this extension is generic and applicable to both SR and non-SR paths, the description about SR related mechanisms in the introduction section may be simplified. Are you willing to work on this draft? Yes, I am willing to review the future versions of this document. Best regards, Jie From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 12:09 AM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-p...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05 Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu/ 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 11th April 2022. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
