Hi Dhruv and Julien,
I read the draft and support it along with PCECC work. It is important to
define those extensions, the degree of details is good.
SY,
Boris
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 5,
Hi Julien, Dhruv and all,
I read the draft and strongly support its publication. Scheduled LSP is a good
proposal from many points of view, I see such requirement in real networks too.
SY,
Boris
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange
Hi Dhruv, Julien and all,
I read this document. I think it is logical evolution of PCE and PCEP
functionality towards more precise binding of traffic flows to LSPs.
I like the idea that FS capability should be advertised in 2 ways via IGP and
PCEP OPEN message, that we can revoke flows from tunn
Hi all,
I read this draft and support its adoption by WG because support of Path
Segment in PCE and ways of its allocation are important.
Also agree with earlier Rakesh comments in the list about extending normative
and informative reference sections by including those 2 drafts
(draft-ietf-spin
Hi all,
I have read draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-01 and think it is ready for
publication.
As it was mentioned, it is small but important since it closes possible
interoperability issues of handling PCEP flags in SRP object between different
implementations.
SY,
Boris
-Original Mes
Thanks a lot Adrian for all your great work and efforts!
SY,
Boris
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:14 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs
Subject: [Pce] Adrian stepping down as PCE co-chair
Hi,
As we noted earlier,
Hi Dhruv and all,
Yes, I personally support the adoption of this draft.
Additionally to a pre-adoption review, few questions to authors for a thinking
during next version preparation (sorry if I missed earlier discussion about
this).
The draft says:
" A PCC could report the binding label/SID a
Hi all,
I reviewed the draft and personally support WG adoption because it is very
important work.
Few comments:
1) Jeff earlier provided the comments about Function Code section (page 11), I
would like to add mine: there are only End.DX6, End.DT6 functions - how about
End.DT4, End.DX4? VPN
Yes, support.
SY,
Boris
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:47 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-control...@ietf.org;
pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
draft-zhao-pce-pcep-ext
Yes, support (as co-author).
SY,
Boris
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 1:11 PM
To: pce@ietf.org; draft-wang-pce-pcep-extension-native...@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-wang-pce-pcep-extension-nativ
Hi JP,
From one side it is a bit sad to hear that news, but surely it will be huge
advantage for those new projects to get you onboard.
Your accomplishments say much more than any words.
Warmest wishes!
SY,
Boris
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent:
Hi all,
Firstly as others said - thank you Jon for bringing it up.
My 0,05$:
1) I also do agree with Daniele, Stephane, Adrian and others that PCEP as
SBI is a fact.
2) Can PCEP be extended to some new directions? IMO - yes, why not. Surely
we have different protocols that my look ov
12 matches
Mail list logo
