inline
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 10 January 2024 13:06
Hi Tom, WG,
Speaking as a WG member...
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:30 PM tom petch
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
Sent: 10 January 2024 10:18
Hi PCE WG,
I would like to ask for WG LC for draft-
Samuel
Thank you for the reply. Dhruv made a similar response and I have responded to
that. I think that that response addresses the answers you give but let me
know if there is something I hve not addressed.
Tom Petch
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sen
Hi Tom,
Since you responded to both mails (from me and from Dhruv) together, I'll
respond here.
Please see inline .
Regards,
Samuel
-Original Message-
From: tom petch
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 1:25 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody
Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce]
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with .
Thanks,
Mike.
From: Andrew Stone (Nokia)
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2:05 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ;
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-poli
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with .
Thanks,
Mike.
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:25 AM
To: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody
Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-ro
Hi Huaimo,
Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with .
Thanks,
Mike.
-Original Message-
From: Huaimo Chen
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 11:12 AM
To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ;
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-
Hi Mike,
Using MUST sounds good to me to keep the interop behavior consistent. Agreed,
especially since there may be an inability to resolve the SID destination (ex:
bsid, interdomain etc..) that it’s likely best to just force the resolution to
rely on Endpoint from SRPA.
Thanks
Andrew
From:
Hi WG,
I read the document and think it’s in good shape.
Two minor comments as follow:
1. In section 4.2 there is a new Error-Value TBD6 “Missing Mandatory TLV”
(which is also inconsistent with the name in section 6.3), however for existing
Error-Value under Error-Type “Mandatory Object M
I support publication.
I have reviewed v12 and have a few minor comments.
At the end of the abstract section you could say forwarding planes of SR
instead of dataplane. As the data planes of SR would be MPLS and IPv6.
Old
The mechanism is applicable to all data planes of SR (MPLS, SRv6, etc.).
