Hi, Authors: Just want to clarify some questions first: 1) As described in section 6(Backward Compatibility) of your draft, it seems that " send a PCEP message without AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV first and then include the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV with the updated sub-TLV. " can achieve the same effect to remove the aimed sub-TLV? If so, what's advantage of this draft? If not, why?
2) Is there any situation that needs to remove the sub-TLV with default value? If so, it seems current mechanism can't achieve such aim. 3) From the table 1 of your draft, the default value of " Down-Adjustment-Threshold " is " Adjustment-Threshold ", but the default value of " Adjustment-Threshold " is "None". Then which category the " Down-Adjustment-Threshold " belongs to? Have default value or not? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 [email protected] 发送时间: 2024年10月7日 23:05 收件人: [email protected] 主题: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update Hi all, This is an adoption poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update. Do you believe that this document [1] is a right foundation for a PCE WG item? Please use the PCE mailing list to express your support or the reasons why you may be opposed to its adoption. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
