In favor (both drafts)
Tomonori
> Dear WG,
>
> There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG
> documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm
> on the list.
>
> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt
>
> C
Hi Franz,
Thanks for various comments.
Sorry that authors are a bit behind on this.
We will update the document addressing your comments.
Thanks,
Tomonori
Rambach, Franz (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> Some comments/questions regarding draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-09.txt:
>
> Page
Hi,
In favor.
Tomonori
JP Vasseur wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> draft-yasukawa-pce-vpn-req-05.txt has been "presented" several times
> during WG meetings and has been smoothy progressing.
>
> Would you be in favor/opposed to adopt it as a PCE WG document ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
Yes.
Tomonori
JP Vasseur wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to poll the WG again on the adoption of
> draft-farrel-pce-vendor-constraints-02.txt as a WG document ? We had
> very reply to the first poll in November.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: JP Vasseur
>>
Hi,
A new version is posted addressing comments from Franz during the WG
last call.
Tomonori
Original Message
Subject: [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-10.txt
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
CC
Yes (as a co-author).
Tomonori
julien.meu...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> Hello PCE members.
>
> As you probably now, CCAMP has already endorsed some WSON and RWA as working
> items. In the same context, draft-lee-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-05.txt put
> some requirements on PCEP. Do you think
Hi,
It would be good time to inform status of this draft.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-req-10.txt
The authors think that we have captured all of the requirements and that
the draft is complete. We note that there is some solutions work, but
that it has not introduced any more
-layer-ext] can be
used in case of mono-layer request, however in case of multilayer it
is possible to have in the future more than one object, so it is
better to have a dedicated TLV for the label (the scope is then more
clear).
Not sure what this means.
Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda
Jul
(Apologies if you received multiple copies of this message.)
Dear CCAMP, PCE, MPLS and MPLS-TP subscribers,
iPOP2011 Call for Presentation is now open as follows.
The deadline for submitting presentation proposal is February 25th.
Best Regards,
Tomonori Takeda
FP as follows.
Sorry for your inconvenience.
Tomonori Takeda
---
Call for Presentation
7th International Conference on IP + Optical Network (iPOP 2011)
June 2-3, 2011
NEC T
(Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message.)
CCAMP, MPLS, MPLS-TP and PCE subscribers,
Please find below iPOP 2011 CFP with the extended deadline (March 4th).
Tomonori Takeda
-
Call for Presentation
Hi,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft (other than the one
already disclosed).
Thank you,
Tomonori Takeda
(2014/02/19 1:40), Julien Meuric wrote:
Dear authors of the aforementioned document,
Has all IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength been
disclosed
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-06.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: September 9th, 2016
IETF LC End Date: Not known
Intended Status: Informational
Summary:
I have some minor
ng. Based
on triggers such as a failure or an optimization trigger, the PCE can order the
computations and path setup in a deterministic way.
==>
Thanks for clarification. Proposed new text looks good to me.
Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda
-Original Message-
From: rtg-dir [mailto:
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-07.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: Jan 20th, 2017
IETF LC End Date: Not known
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
I have
ributes."
Thanks. I think adding text would be beneficial for completeness.
Thanks,
Tomo
-Original Message-
From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:32 AM
To: Tomonori Takeda（武田知典）; 'rtg-...@ietf.org'
Cc: 'rtg-...@ietf.org&#
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: July 16th, 2019
IETF LC End Date: Not known
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
This document is
Yes
Tomonori
At 23:46 08/02/07, JP Vasseur wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>There was a good support to adopt draft-oki-pce-inter-layer-ext-00.txt as a
>PCE WG document during the meeting in Vancouver to be confirmed on the
>mailing list.
>
>Are you in favor or opposed to adopt draft-oki-pce-inter-lay
Yes
Tomonori
> Dear WG,
>
> We discussed about our rechartering during the PCE WG yesterday and there
> was a large consensus for including P2MP (requirements and PCEP protocol
> extensions). It is at this point pre-mature to include further items but the
> discussion should continue on the ML.
19 matches
Mail list logo
