Dear Chairs,
I read the draft and support the adoption since it is reasonable to be an
experimental draft.
And it is useful to provide another option for PCECC model to collect the space
information other than BGP-LS.
But I am confused about the new TLV extensions which is used to advertise the
PCE-controlled ID spase to a PCE.
Why defines the TLVs in the OPEN object but not in LS Object as per
[draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls] which is also reporting the information to PCE?
Thanks,
Quan
<<Hi WG,
<<This email begins the WG adoption poll for
<<
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/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 3rd June 2024.
<<Please be more vocal during WG polls!
<<Thanks!
<<Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
