Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14: (with COMMENT)

Great, thanks! Given basically no other Ad have stated a position yet, I would actually recommend to submit the update now, so the other AD can review the next version. Mirja > Am 31.07.2017 um 19:37 schrieb Dhruv Dhody : > > Hi Mirja, > >> -Original Message-

Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07: (with COMMENT)

That’s fine. Thanks! > Am 31.10.2016 um 10:00 schrieb Zhangxian (Xian) : > > Hi, Mirja, > >Thank you very much for your review and comments. > >We have addressed Alvaro's comments by removing all the dependencies to > protocol extensions drafts (see latest

Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Dhruv, please see inline. > Am 15.09.2016 um 07:37 schrieb Dhruv Dhody : > > Hi Mirja, > > Let me thank you for the detailed review and comments. > I have tried to answer your comments, please see inline. > The working copy with all comments received during the last

Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Deborah, hi Spencer, Spencer, thanks for adding on to this. Yes, that’s where my concern comes from. I know that this only tries to use what's already done in RFC7471 (OSPF) and RFC7810 (ISIS) but the wording is used differently there. Sorry for being picky but as this is actually only a