Hi PCE WG, I feel I owe an apology as an active member who has come up with a "strong" review during IETF last call.
Truth is I had basically ignored this draft from way back because I did not think it was "mainstream". I can see the value espoused in the motivation sections, and I don't object to the function, but I also did not think it would end up playing a significant role in deployments, so I neglected to read the text (ever!). Then I got selected as the TSV-ART reviewer and, of course, read the document. The short form of my review is: - the motivations are credible - the solution is basically functional - the documentation of the details needs attention Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 24 February 2017 17:42 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync- > [email protected] > Subject: [Pce] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations > > Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations > Reviewer: Adrian Farrel > Review Date: February 21, 2017 > IETF LC End Date: February 28, 2017 > IESG Telechat date: March 16, 2017 > > Review result: Has Issues _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
