Hi Julien, I've read both the previous version before the split and the latest version of this document, and I support its adoption.
Best regards, Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec > > Hi all and best wishes for 2022. > > Gentle reminder: we started a poll some days before Christmas. If it was pure > new work, I'd assume there isn't enough interest yet. Since it's pre-existing > work that has been split to catch up with another WG's work in progress, I'd > feel more comfortable to get some explicit feedback. > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > On 16/12/2021 17:49, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This message is the following step to the situation previously > > summarized by Dhruv [1]. > > > > As a result, do you believe that draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec [2] is > > a right foundation to become (again) a PCE WG item? > > > > Please respond to the PCE list, including any comment you may feel > > useful, especially in case of negative answer. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Julien > > > > (As a reminder, Dhruv recused himself from the administrative > > process.) > > > > -- > > > > [1] > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4f8f_3Qs_uA3T16CTCAsoOJnt58/ > > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec/ > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
