On 05/03/2016 12:33 PM, Julien Meuric wrote: > Hi Ina, Hello Ina, Julien,
> > The status is the following: > - There used to be a couple of mismatches between Robert's comments and > the wording of the I-D: if he is fine with the latest update, we are good; There were three points outstanding: - empty PCUpd with D=1, I think current text is sufficient - SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in SRP, the authors have agreed to remove it - PCNtf vs. PCErr when PCE resource limits are hit. I think current text is fine. So in this regard I think we are go. > - A parallel thread about stateless PCE has grown up to tackle an issue > to be addressed as a comment on this I-D: it is now useful to have the > authors joining that part of the discussion to reach a consensus on the > resolution > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/_ih3NcDK2_iy8xSHcquzm-q_2bs); I will re-read the thread and reply there. > - With PCEPS I-D getting close to IANA, Jon refreshed the codepoint > early allocation proposal not so long ago > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Jg2f8AGa9ZpVZup13YWzTHwkUD8): > a feedback of stateful I-Ds' authors on that action would be welcome. Already sent a reply. Thanks, Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
