Support adoption! The draft addresses a hole in the existing protection toolkit.
It would however be useful to have a generic way of requesting or mandating each LSP/path attribute (similar to RSVP LSP/HOP attributes). I haven't read draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional, but I'm assuming that it doesn't cover local protection enforcement. Regards, -Pavan On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for > draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 > > 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). > > 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
