Hi WG, We have made an update to the Protection Association Type I-D [1]. The changes are -
- Section on session termination handling - Better Alignment to the generic association WG draft - Clarification added for 'LSPs in this association group, must belong to the same TE tunnel' See Diff [2]. === Hi Chairs, This was the first association-type draft that was submitted and first presented during IETF 90 along with the base association draft [3]. There are known implementation of this association-type as well. Now that we have stabilized the base association draft, as well as adopted some association-types - diversity and policy. I feel we should also adopt this draft. Would you consider calling WG adoption call on this draft? Thanks! Dhruv [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-04 [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-03&url2=draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-04 [3] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-pce-8.pdf _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
