Hi Dhruv,
I support the adoption of this draft. Thanks for the work from authors.
But I am confused about section 1 "PCEP extensions described in this document
are applicable to all Path
Setup Types".
This draft mainly focus on the Circuit Style Policies and SR policy but path
setup types include RSVP-TE,SR,PCECC,SRv6, Native IP TE path and the newly
adopted BIER-TE.
I suggest that it is better to provide clarification about other path setup
types or remove this sentence.
Thanks,
Quan
<<Hi WG,
<<This email begins the WG adoption poll for
<<draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/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 Friday 15th Dec 2023.
<<Please be more vocal during WG polls!
<<Thanks!
<<Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
