Hi Andrew,
WGLC is still a right time to raise this question. Even if a separate
document would have been clearer to specify a generic feature, I agree
with Dhruv: we could still rearrange/reword the corresponding section(s)
to state that this part is generic and may be implemented independently
of the remainder of the document.
As a next step, you could event consider editing a new I-D advertising
the data plane-agnostic applicability of this mechanism and pointing the
relevant section of the current document for its specification.
Thanks for sharing that comment,
Julien
On 08/01/2026 06:51:30 Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>, wrote:
Hi Andrew,
As a WG participant...
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:42 AM Andrew Stone (Nokia)
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Authors,
I have a question which I realize is a bit late in the process:
was it considered to move out carrying of Router IDs in the Open
Object (Section 5.4 + 7.1.2) to be in an independent document? I
find that function would be quite useful independent of any
specific dataplane or path setup type as a generic capability in
PCEP.
Dhruv: This should be possible.
Another approach could be to explicitly state that these are generic
and thus applicable beyond PCECC-SR even though it is the PCECC-SR
document that defines and uses them first?
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Dhruv
Thanks
Andrew
*From: *Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[email protected]>
*Date: *Wednesday, January 7, 2026 at 2:00 PM
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when
clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext
<http://nok.it/ext> for additional information.
Hi WG,
This email marks the start of the WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr/
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft on the
mailing list. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft
to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please
indicate that you have read the latest version and that it is
ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments
and nits are most welcome.
This Working Group Last Call ends on Monday, 2026-01-26.
A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the
last-call/adoption.
Thanks,
Dhruv & Julien
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr/
There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11.html
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
