Hi Julien, We have posted a revised draft 07 to address the comment on the author list. We plan to address the remained comments in the adopted revision. Please let us know if ok to post draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-00.
There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-07 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-07 Thanks, Rakesh (behalf of authors) On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:09 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > This I-D has enough support to be adopted. > > Before we proceed, we'd like to see an update addressing at least the > issue about the number of names on the front page. Authors, please > submit a -07 version accordingly, so that we can move the draft forward. > > Thanks, > > Dhruv & Julien > > > On 17/01/2020 11:12, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > It is time to share your thoughts about draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06. > > Do you believe the I-D is a right foundation for a PCE WG item? Please > > use the PCE mailing list to express your comments, support or > > disagreement, including applicable rationale, especially for the latter. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dhruv & Julien > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
