Looks good to me. Thanks! On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 11:37 PM Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dhruv, > > While I prefer this would be isolated (clearer to find, reference, > interpret etc..) I can appreciate it’s not technically necessary, so that > would be okay to me. I proposed some text below for section 7.1.2. > Thoughts? > > > ... > ... > 7.1.2. Router-ID TLVs > > The Router-ID TLV described in this document is generic and not specific > to any specific path-setup type or use case. One or more Router-ID TLV MAY > be carried in the OPEN object and does not require the exchange of the > capability described in Section 5.3. > > As specified in Section 5.4, for the purposes of this document, the PCC > SHOULD advertise TE mapping information by including the Router-ID TLVs > within the OPEN object. > … > ... > > > Thanks! > Andrew > > *From: *Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, January 8, 2026 at 12:52 AM > *To: *Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected] < > [email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: WG Last Call: > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11 (Ends 2026-01-26) > > > *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when > clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for > additional information. > > > Hi Andrew, > > As a WG participant... > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:42 AM Andrew Stone (Nokia) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > I have a question which I realize is a bit late in the process: was it > considered to move out carrying of Router IDs in the Open Object (Section > 5.4 + 7.1.2) to be in an independent document? I find that function would > be quite useful independent of any specific dataplane or path setup type as > a generic capability in PCEP. > > > Dhruv: This should be possible. > Another approach could be to explicitly state that these are generic and > thus applicable beyond PCECC-SR even though it is the PCECC-SR document > that defines and uses them first? > Thoughts? > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > > > Thanks > Andrew > > *From: *Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 7, 2026 at 2:00 PM > *To: *[email protected] < > [email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject: *WG Last Call: > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11 (Ends 2026-01-26) > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > information. > > > > Hi WG, > > This email marks the start of the WG last call for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr - > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr/ > > Please indicate your support or concern for this draft on the mailing > list. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please > articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have > read the latest version and that it is ready for publication in your > opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. > > This Working Group Last Call ends on Monday, 2026-01-26. > > A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the > last-call/adoption. > > Thanks, > Dhruv & Julien > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr/ > > There is also an HTML version available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11.html > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11 > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
