Hi PCE WG, This draft was updated to include the following:
- Draft renamed to reflect this is for "local" protection enforcement (used to be called path-protection) - new co author - Added more text regarding the various use cases / why a user may want these options - Added text discussing situations of no preference / "no not care" Thanks Andrew On 2020-03-02, 11:32 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Andrew Stone and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement Revision: 00 Title: Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP Document date: 2020-03-02 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 8 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement Abstract: This document aims to clarify existing usage of the local protection desired bit signalled in Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP). This document also introduces a new flag for signalling protection strictness in PCEP. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
