Support with some comments. SR policy is very important for Segment Routing. Adding an Association object to support SR policy is a very simple extension, therefore I support this adoption.
Comments: The SR policy name can be configured via PCEP and BGP or other ways, do we need to make sure the name of the same SR policy is identical? IMHO, the text of how to handle SR policy name conflictions between protocols should be added. Thanks, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 3:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06 Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/ 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? Review comments should be posted to the list. This adoption poll will end on 22nd June 2020. 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
