I reviewed the draft and support WG adoption.
I believe this ELP PCE capability extension maybe helpful in determining
the position to place the ELI. EL label. According to RFC 8662 a {ELI,EL}
label must be placed after every SID in the sid list based on the ERLD. I
maybe a good idea to explain why computing the ERLD would add complexity in
the ELI/EL insertion process and why a new mechanism using the ELP is
necessary. Also why the ERLD computation is not required as described in
RFC 8662.
Thanks
Gyan
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>*
*M 301 502-1347*
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:50 AM Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/
>
> 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 12th Feb 2024.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> 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
