Support!
A few comments that can be handled in the later versions
(1) An error handling when this condition is not met -
o An LSP can not be part of more than one Bidirectional LSP
Association Group.
(2) Update the section 2.1 with new template based on RFC8174
(3) In section 3.1, add clarity on who reports the reverse LSP LSP2, the
remote endpoint D or the originating node A? Need to consider deletion and
status down as well.
(4) Clarification on if more than one forward and reverse LSP can be part of
the association group
(5) A word on association source maybe simply a reference to
[I-D.ietf-pce-association] will do!
Thanks!
Dhruv
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 10 April 2018 19:35
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-association-bidir-04
Dear PCE WG
This is the start of a two week poll on making
draft-barth-pce-association-bidir-04 a PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-association-bidir/
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, April 24.
Many thanks,
Jon and Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
