Hi, Dhruv: I support the adoption of this draft.
One comment for the current document, would like to see the author give some explanations or add some clarifications for them: Will it be more accurate to change draft name to include some key words as "Policy Association"? For none association type of SR-MPLS Policy via PCEP, is RFC8664 sufficient? For none association type of SRv6 via PCEP, there is also another WG draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-04 As mentioned in the document, although the color/endpoint is not included in the above documents, but these enhancements is not the main part of this draft? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Dhruv > Dhody > 发送时间: 2020年6月7日 15:45 > 收件人: [email protected] > 主题: [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/0 6/ > > 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
