Unsurprisingly, I also think we should adopt this drafts. To me it seems like a critical piece of function that we "forgot" when we started to allow thee PCE to have control. AFAIK current implementations "bodge" around the issue backing up PCEP messages with other control messages (such as Netconf) to say how the LSP should be used. We need a consolidated approach. Thanks, Adrian From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 20 February 2018 13:34 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 Dear PCE WG This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a PCE working group document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/ Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends on Tuesday, March 6. Many thanks, Jon and Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
