Hi all,
This WGLC has ended. Thank you Aijun for the valuable feedback and
thanks to the authors for resolving the comments in a timely manner.
We'll now proceed to the next step.
Cheers,
Dhruv & Julien
On 07/06/2022 11:18, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
Dear all,
This message starts a
Hi WG,
A reminder that the WGLC ends on Wednesday 22nd June. Please respond to the
WGLC.
This bears repeating -
-
Please be vocal on the list to help us gauge the consensus better.
-
The WG mailing lists are looked at by the IESG, IAB, and others
(internal and external to IETF)
Hi Aijun,
Thanks for the feedback. I'll make the below additions to the document and
upload later this week, to allow for any other feedback/changes to come in.
Thanks
Andrew
Section 4.2
BEFORE
The selection of the options are typically dependent on the s
Hi, Andrew:
Thanks for your explanation.
I think adding these descriptions into the document would be helpful to the
reader to know the necessary of the protocol extension.
I support its forwarding.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Jun 10, 2022, at 23:20, Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> wrote
Hi Aijun,
Replies inline below with
Thanks
Andrew
On 2022-06-09, 11:32 PM, "Pce on behalf of Aijun Wang" wrote:
Hi, All:
After reading this draft, my feel is that it make the situation more
complex. Won’t it be more difficult for interoperability from different
vendors, or from t
Hi, All:
After reading this draft, my feel is that it make the situation more complex.
Won’t it be more difficult for interoperability from different vendors, or
from the different versions of the same vendor?
And, is there any situation that the customer want “UNPROTECTED MANDATORY”
service?
Dear all,
This message starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call
fordraft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-05 [1].
Please share your comments using the PCE mailing list. Any levels of
reviews are very welcome and all feedback remain useful to check the
readiness of the document.
This LC
