Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
- Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or a
Hi PCE Chairs and WG
A few questions/comments regarding draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06:
1. draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy states that only a single
candidate path can be active within an SR Policy. While we wouldn't want to
repeat all the text in the PCEP document that
nt: Monday, June 8, 2020 12:05 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi PCE Chairs and WG
A few questions/comments regarding draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06:
1. draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy states that onl
@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/
Should this draft be adopted by
Hi Aijun,
Just based on the new path setup type, the existing PCEP messages and
procedures can be used for the SR-MPLS and SRv6 paths (independent of
any SR policy information). That is described in RFC 8664 and
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6. Some of the work in PCE WG
predates the SR policy
Hi WG, Chairs,
Support the WG adoption.
Thanks,
Rakesh
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:46 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/
Hi WG, Chairs,
I support WG adoption of this draft.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Shuping
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 3:45 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment
Yes, Support.
The work of PCEP extension to support association among candidate paths of SR
policy is useful in SR deployment.
Best Regards
Xuesong
> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 3:45 PM
> To: pce@ietf
Hi，WG,
I support WG adoption of this draft.
Thanks
Chongfeng
-邮件原件-
发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Dhruv Dhody
发送时间: 2020年6月7日 15:45
收件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption
Yes, Support.
Regards，
Peng Liu
liupeng...@outlook.com
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: 2020-06-07 15:45
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi WG,
I support the adoption of this work.
Best regards,
Cong Li
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: 2020-06-07 15:45
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy
Hi,
I support the adoption of this work. It is neccssary for the SR policy.
Best Regards,
Zongpeng Du
duzongp...@foxmail.com
From: lic...@chinatelecom.cn
Date: 2020-06-22 18:06
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi WG
As a co-author, I support WG adoption.
—Colby
> On Jun 22, 2020, at 3:15 AM, Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
> wrote:
>
> Yes, Support.
> The work of PCEP extension to support association among candidate paths of SR
> policy is useful in SR deployment.
>
> Best Regards
> Xuesong
>
>> -Origi
Support the adoption of this document -- this is a critical piece for
realizing controller driven SR policies.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:46 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
>
>
> https://
Hi,
I support the adoption of this document.
thanks.
s.
> On Jun 7, 2020, at 9:45 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/0
I support adoption of the ID. The ability to initiate/report/delegate colored
SR policies (and candidate paths) via PCEP is crucial, and this draft addresses
this.
Regards,
Trek
On 6/7/20, 3:46 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" wrote:
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll f
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> - Why /
Dhody
Sent: 07 June 2020 13:15
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy
Hi,
I support the adoption of this document.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 3:45 PM
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segm
Hi WG,
Thanks to all who responded to the adoption poll. We have support to
adopt this as a WG item. Please continue to provide your comments as
the document moves through the WG process.
Authors, please post a -00 version
'draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-00' with only the name/date
chan
20 matches
Mail list logo
