Hi, Authors: I Just have a quick view of this draft, and has some points wanted to be clarified: 1. This draft defines one new association type (policy association type) that follows the procedures described in RFC8697 and attached TLV? Is it right? 2. According to the text described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8697#section-3.2, to define one new association type, the related draft should clarify its relationship between the SVEC object, if any. Should this draft to add such part? 3. For the definition of "Policy-Parameters-TLV", the "Policy Parameters" is opaque value to the PCEP peers. The draft describes the PCEP peers should know how to the encoding format of such policy in advance. But from my POV, the encoding format is the main content needs to be standardized. If such contents can't be standardized, what benefit can we get from this standardization work? What's the reason not to standardize this?
Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:42 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; pce-chairs <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-association-policy Hi WG, A reminder to the WG to be more vocal. I am copying this slide from the chair's WG status slide [https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-pce-1-introduction-0 1] > Please be Vocal > > o During WG Adoption and WG LC calls, the response is less. > > o Please be vocal on the list to help us gauge the consensus better. > > o The working group mailing lists are looked at by the IESG, IAB, and others (internal and external to IETF) to determine interest/participation level in our standards process. > > o Please review ideas from your peers, these are community outputs of the working group as a whole. > The WG LC for the draft in question ends on Monday 21st Sept. Please respond with your explicit support (or not) for its publication. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 10:43 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi WG, > > This email starts a working group last call for > draft-ietf-pce-association-policy [1]. Please indicate your support > or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of > the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, > please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready > for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits > are most welcome. > > The WG LC will end on 21st September 2020. > > Thanks, > Dhruv & Julien > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-policy/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
