Support pce working group adoption of this draft. IMHO, it solves most of the problems and meets most requirements of
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-problem-statement-01.txt and builds upon the foundations of the IGP extensions to do so as described in http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-framework-06.txt Dave From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:13 PM To: Pce <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware as a new WG document ? Dear all, There was a good consensus in adopting draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware-05.txt> as a PCE WG document but as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. Please express your opinion Yes/No (comments welcome too). Thanks. JP and Julien.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
