Hi Cheng,
Not an author, but as a document shepherd for this one -
The alphabets assigned to the bits do not have to expand to a keyword in the
description, even though that is the usual practice for readability purpose.
I am not sure why the authors picked "F" but it did not matter to me while
Hi Hari,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan [mailto:h...@netflix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Siva Sivabalan (msiva) ; cfils...@cisco.com;
jefftant.i...@gmail.com; jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com;
Hi Hari,
I’m not aware of any IPR applicable.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Aug 20, 2019, at 23:40, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for Working Group last call on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance
>
Hi Authors,
In preparation for Working Group last call on this draft, I'd like all
authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance
with IETF IPR rules.
Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that
Hi authors,
I am a little bit confusing of F and S bit in SR-ERO subobject.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16#section-4.3.1
What is F standing for ?
and how about S ? S for SID?
It seems like S and F bit can not be set at the same time, correct?
Thanks,
Cheng
Yes, support. Binding SID is very useful in many use cases, such as
inter-domain/Multi-domain routing, SR policy, tunnel stitching, etc.
Also, as descripted in this document, Huawei has implemented the mechanism.
Since the text is mature, I support this WG adoption.
Best regards,
Cheng as a
As co-author support adoption.
Preemptively - not aware of any IPR
Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 20, 2019, 1:45 PM -0400, Dhruv Dhody , wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07 [1].
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07 [1].
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
Hi Qin,
I didn't see any response to this email, so I thought I should chip in with
some (old, old, old) memories and context.
tl;dr I am generally supportive of this work, but I think a little
fine-tuning is needed.
If I recall correctly, the situation when 5088 and 5089 were produced was
that
