Hi Aijun, Thank you for your suggestions.
Since this draft is going to be refined considering the new draft being built in SPRING, the current uploaded draft is not changed accordingly. Please find more responses in line below. Best Regards, Shuping From: Aijun Wang [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:37 AM To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05 Hi, Dhruv: I have read this document and support it adoption. Some suggestions for the current contents are the followings: 1. The proposal in this draft is easy to understand, It is better to simplify the “Introduction” part. Shuping> Yes, this part will be simplified. 2. There should be one section about “Procedures for the Path MTU calculation”, which can include the some contents in section 3.1, section 3.2, section 3.5 Shuping > Yes, this section is needed. We will consider where to put it. 3. Section 3.3 and 3.4 should be put in one independent section, such as “Application of the Path MTU Metric”? Shuping > We will consider this suggestion. Thank you! Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 12:09 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05 Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu/ 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 11th April 2022. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
