Hi PCE WG, I just made the changes for my own review from WG last call.
Dhruv asked for additional work... > I personally have no objection if the document is now updated to include > stateful PCE extensions as well, as suggested below by Adrian. > Though I would like if some more meat is added about stateful PCE, if the WG agrees - > >- Section 2 Overview >- Section 3.x objects -> the usage and meaning of flags etc are with respect to PCReq/PCRep only >- Some more text in the new proposed section 4.3 so that it matches with similar details in section 4.1 and 4.2 >- Section 5, we would need RBNF for stateful PCE messages as well as updated PCReq/PCRep for passive stateful I have not made specific changes beyond what I had previously suggested. Dhruv, Do you have specific text suggestions? Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
