From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: 02 September 2022 10:09
Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/ 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. <tp> The challenge I see is the SR references, one is RFC9256, the others, spring-sr-policy-yang and spring-srv6-yang, are expired; not a good starting point.. The 'when' clauses use absolute form of the path which means that the when is satisfied if there is anything meeting this anywhere in the tree, not just in this path of the tree; if the latter is wanted, then the relative form is required MSD type could do with a better reference - pce-segment-routing-ipv6 points to RFC8491 but that only sets up an IANA registry which contains many more entries so I think the reference has to be to the IANA registry. 'Add NAI' looks like an unresolved issue Tom Petch Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
