Hi WG,
Thanks to all who responded to the adoption poll. We have support to
adopt this as a WG item. Please continue to provide your comments as
the document moves through the WG process.
Authors, please post a -00 version
'draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-00' with only the name/date change,
and be sure to set the "replaces" option during submission ("extended"
is added in the file name for clarity).
Please post the -01 version that handles the comments received during
the adoption call as well.
Thanks!
PCE Chairs
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is a
> straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit
> expressions of support (and comments).
>
> We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your
> support (or not) for this adoption.
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
>>
>> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
>> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
>> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Please respond by Monday 15th Feb.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
