Dear All,
I've read the draft and support its adoption by the PCE WG. A couple notes
for future consideration:
- Adrian earlier noted the number of names on the front page. Although
the five is not a hard stop, it seems like conforming to the
recommendation could be a wise approach.
- TE as Tree Engineering is used in the document is hard to distinguish
from more used at IETF expansion of the acronym, Traffic engineering.
Hence, several questions:
- In your view, is Tree Engineering close to the Path Engineering,
i.e., defining an explicit path, or it also includes the resource
allocation and thus is closer to the true Traffic Engineering?
- Assuming it is the former, could using the Path Engineering be
acceptable?
- If it is the latter, could TE in the draft be expanded as Traffic
Engineering?
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:36 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I support WG adoption.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gyan
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:50 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-bier-11.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-bier/
>>
>> 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 9th Oct 2023.
>>
>> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv & Julien
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
