Hi Julien and all, I am very sorry for the late reply. Somehow missed the email. I read the draft and strongly support it, because it covers missing practical part of PCECC architecture for P2MP paths (PCE and PCC-Initiated). It would be very helpful to add any mentions of implementations (even if engineering stage, not GA).I would also point to make a small change: [I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases] -> RFC 9689 Thank you. SY,Boris [email protected] Mon, 19 May 2025 14:23 UTCShow header Hi all, This is an adoption poll for draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-p2mp-14 [1]. WG, do you think that the aforementioned I-D is ready to serve as a foundation for a PCE WG item? Please use the PCE mailing list to express your support or your reasons to be opposed. Thanks, Julien -- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-p2mp/
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
