Hi Julien, Thanks for starting this. I believe the feedbacks collected after the first discussions significantly improved the scope of the draft, making it narrow, simple and straight forward. This is a minor extension to PCEP that allows a better exchange of path computation results, particularly in an hierarchical environment. Yes, I would be happy to see this work proceeding.
Thanks, Daniele -----Original Message----- From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: den 13 december 2018 14:05 To: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
