I support the adoption and willing to work on it. The Function Code section is not well specified and should refer to draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming that has requested new IANA sub-registry "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors”. In general it is unclear why do we need them and what does “maintainability” mean in that context.
Cheers, Jeff On Feb 21, 2019, 10:47 PM -0800, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com>, wrote: > Hi WG, > > Please read & review draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-04 [1] and > send your comments to the mailing list. > > Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons > - Why / why not? > > What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? > > Are you willing to work on this draft? Do you plan to implement it? > > This poll will run until 8th March. > > Thanks, > PCE Chairs > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/?include_text=1 > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
