Addressing Tom’s latest comments…
Be goode,
Begin forwarded message:
From: mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-pceps-09.txt
Date: 9 March 2016 at 24:24:13.000 GMT+1
To: Wenson Wu mailto:sunse...@huawei.com>>, Qin Wu
mailto:sunse...@huawei.com>>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element of the IETF.
Title : Secure Transport for PCEP
Authors : Diego R. Lopez
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Hi Tom,
(what are you going to leave for the shepherd and the RFC editors? :-))
The PCC/PCV mistake was caused by my fiddling with line breaks to make a more
readable XML source when updating to -08. Good catch!
And you are right that RFC5288 should be mentioned in section 3.4, and among
the n
All,
On the agenda for Buenos Aires, we have a session on Tuesday April 5th, 17:30 -
19:00 in Atlantico B. This is currently listed as a TEAS meeting, but is
intended as a joint MPLS/PCE/TEAS meeting for the discussion of Yang models.
If you'd like a slot to present a Yang draft in Buenos Aires
Diego,
Yes, understand the logic but (ducking) it was
" In addition, a PCC MAY apply the procedures described in [RFC6698]"
and is now
" In addition, a PCV MAY apply the procedures described in [RFC6698]"
Separately (why can't I get it right first time?), your MTI ciphersuites
are defined in RF
Dear PCE Chairs:
Here is the update to draft-wu-pce-traffic-steering-sfc
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-pce-traffic-steering-sfc/).
This draft discusses SFC support for a stateful PCE to compute and instantiate
Service Function Paths and has been discussed in the past PCE WG meeting
