Hi Adrian, WG, Just one point and starting a new thread ->
> > > > 4. > > > > How does internationalization work for the Virtual Network Name? > > Why is ASCII acceptable? > > > > --- > > > In the past, we had limited to ASCII, see SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV (RFC 8231). I see a recent discussion (but not sure if it is resolved yet) for the spring SR policy draft related to the same topic - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/ballot/ (search for ASCII) I think it is wise for PCE WG to think more about this - - Do we continue to use ASCII only - Do we define strings as UTF-8 from now on and leave the old ones as ASCII - Do we make sure older names can be encoded in UTF-8 by defining a new TLV or some other technique? Thoughts? Thanks! Dhruv > > > *From:* Pce <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Dhruv Dhody > *Sent:* 22 February 2022 12:18 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; pce-chairs < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05 > > > > Hi WG, > > This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for > draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05 [1 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/>] to > accommodate the upcoming draft submission deadline. > > 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 Tuesday 15th March 2022. > > A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the > last-call/adoption and help us unclog our queues :) > > Thanks, > Dhruv & Julien > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/ >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
