Hi, All: I support its publication.
While reviewing the document, one question emerged about the design of SRv6-ERO Suboject (and also the SRv6-RRO Suboject): Why don’t use the TLV format for the optional fields in these two objects? Taking such approach can loose the requirement of order of the optional fields, and will be easier for future extension. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: pce-boun...@ietf.org <pce-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:39 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15 Dear PCE WG, This message starts a 2-week WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15 [1]. Please, be express any comments you have about this document using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC will end on Tuesday 28th February 2023. Thanks, Julien -- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
