Hi Ina, Great that you have this under control. Looks like "review and review" are the actions on me. Will do. Cheers, Adrian From: Ina Minei [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 May 2016 17:17 To: 'Adrian Farrel' ([email protected]) Cc: pce; [email protected] Subject: Re: Status of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp Adrian, Thank you for bringing this up. I will repost the initiation draft, I am aware that it expired. Before doing so, will reply to what I think is the unfinished thread ( <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wn4gGwZnTZS53pbyg1eCHw3YMVE> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wn4gGwZnTZS53pbyg1eCHw3YMVE) , please let me know if there was a different thread that you are referring to. Thank you for bringing this up, this had completely fallen through the cracks on my end. Thank you for your offer to help with the stateful PCE I-D. Your help would be appreciated in letting us know if there are pending changes needed, as I am assuming that the version posted a month ago addressed all issues, want to make sure this is not a similar situation as the initiation draft. Thank you, Ina On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: Hi All,
In Buenos Aires Jon presented the WG status (thanks) and showed that draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp is "Pending shepherd review". Just looking now (because quite a lot of new work seems to depend on the PCInitiate message) I see that: - The I-D expired a couple of days ago (April 21, 2016) - The last discussion on the list was an email from Julien suggesting that some work was needed to address open questions on the list. I'd like to see this I-D move forward now (as well as the stateful PCE I-D!). Can I offer my assistance to the authors in any way? I am willing to shovel shit, or just make editorial changes. Let's dig the WG out of the treacle and start to be relevant again :-) Thanks, Adrian
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
