Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
I am happy to update RFC5088 and RFC5089 to allow advertisement of additional PCE information carried in the Router Capability TLV if this is the agreement. -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2018年11月16日 21:18 收件人: Qin Wu; julien.meu...@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org 抄送: p...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 Hi Qin, This was at a time when there were concerns about advertising non-IGP specific information in OSPF(v3) Router Information LSAs. We've since assuaged our concerns with RFC 7770 where I added the functionality of advertising multiple instances of the OSPF(v3) Router Information LSA. Note that this new draft should update both RFC 5088 and RFC 5089. Thanks, Acee On 11/16/18, 12:01 AM, "Qin Wu" wrote: Working on this. Try to figure out how to carry key name in PCED sub-TLV. It looks RFC5088 and RFC5089 doesn't allow add additional sub-TLVs. " RFC5088 No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in OSPF, this will not be carried in the Router Information LSA. RFC5089 No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. " The reason behind was clarified here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/cR7e1SZ_DyUyY14OkfWbCc94paU I am wondering whether there is any other key information exchange that might be happening during discovery mechanism. Depending on the answer, we have three options: 1) Update RFC5088 and RFC 5089 to allow additional sub-TLVs to be added to the PCEP TLV. 2) carry key name using GENINFO TLV of RFC 6823 3) Carry key name during PCEP session establishment phase instead of discovery phase. -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee) 发送时间: 2018年11月15日 23:18 收件人: julien.meu...@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org 抄送: p...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 Authors, Please note that you need not wait until the end of the adoption poll to address my comment and Julien's comments. Thanks, Acee On 11/15/18, 10:02 AM, "Lsr on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com" wrote: Hi, Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to highlight some of the issues in the current version: - The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section 3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example); - Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs; - Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the IANA registry, not of every new I-D!); - Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7) is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14). Thanks, Julien On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior > to that time. _ 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
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Hi Qin, This was at a time when there were concerns about advertising non-IGP specific information in OSPF(v3) Router Information LSAs. We've since assuaged our concerns with RFC 7770 where I added the functionality of advertising multiple instances of the OSPF(v3) Router Information LSA. Note that this new draft should update both RFC 5088 and RFC 5089. Thanks, Acee On 11/16/18, 12:01 AM, "Qin Wu" wrote: Working on this. Try to figure out how to carry key name in PCED sub-TLV. It looks RFC5088 and RFC5089 doesn't allow add additional sub-TLVs. " RFC5088 No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in OSPF, this will not be carried in the Router Information LSA. RFC5089 No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. " The reason behind was clarified here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/cR7e1SZ_DyUyY14OkfWbCc94paU I am wondering whether there is any other key information exchange that might be happening during discovery mechanism. Depending on the answer, we have three options: 1) Update RFC5088 and RFC 5089 to allow additional sub-TLVs to be added to the PCEP TLV. 2) carry key name using GENINFO TLV of RFC 6823 3) Carry key name during PCEP session establishment phase instead of discovery phase. -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee) 发送时间: 2018年11月15日 23:18 收件人: julien.meu...@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org 抄送: p...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 Authors, Please note that you need not wait until the end of the adoption poll to address my comment and Julien's comments. Thanks, Acee On 11/15/18, 10:02 AM, "Lsr on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com" wrote: Hi, Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to highlight some of the issues in the current version: - The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section 3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example); - Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs; - Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the IANA registry, not of every new I-D!); - Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7) is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14). Thanks, Julien On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior > to that time. _ 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. ___ Lsr mailing list
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Working on this. Try to figure out how to carry key name in PCED sub-TLV. It looks RFC5088 and RFC5089 doesn't allow add additional sub-TLVs. " RFC5088 No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in OSPF, this will not be carried in the Router Information LSA. RFC5089 No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. " The reason behind was clarified here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/cR7e1SZ_DyUyY14OkfWbCc94paU I am wondering whether there is any other key information exchange that might be happening during discovery mechanism. Depending on the answer, we have three options: 1) Update RFC5088 and RFC 5089 to allow additional sub-TLVs to be added to the PCEP TLV. 2) carry key name using GENINFO TLV of RFC 6823 3) Carry key name during PCEP session establishment phase instead of discovery phase. -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee) 发送时间: 2018年11月15日 23:18 收件人: julien.meu...@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org 抄送: p...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 Authors, Please note that you need not wait until the end of the adoption poll to address my comment and Julien's comments. Thanks, Acee On 11/15/18, 10:02 AM, "Lsr on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com" wrote: Hi, Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to highlight some of the issues in the current version: - The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section 3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example); - Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs; - Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the IANA registry, not of every new I-D!); - Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7) is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14). Thanks, Julien On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior > to that time. _ 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. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
-邮件原件- 发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 julien.meu...@orange.com 发送时间: 2018年11月15日 23:01 收件人: lsr@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 Hi, Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to highlight some of the issues in the current version: - The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section 3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example); [Qin]:Good point and will following RFC8306 example to make it concise. - Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs; [Qin]: Okay. - Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the IANA registry, not of every new I-D!); [Qin]:Okay, I propose to remove these. - Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7) is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14). [Qin]: Okay, fixed in the local copy. Thanks, Julien On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior > to that time. _ 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. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Authors, Please note that you need not wait until the end of the adoption poll to address my comment and Julien's comments. Thanks, Acee On 11/15/18, 10:02 AM, "Lsr on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com" wrote: Hi, Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to highlight some of the issues in the current version: - The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section 3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example); - Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs; - Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the IANA registry, not of every new I-D!); - Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7) is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14). Thanks, Julien On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior > to that time. _ 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. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Hi, Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to highlight some of the issues in the current version: - The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section 3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example); - Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs; - Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the IANA registry, not of every new I-D!); - Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7) is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14). Thanks, Julien On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior > to that time. _ 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. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Hi all, PCE chair hat on, I need to rectify the statement below: at this stage, PCE, as a WG, has not reach any consensus on this I-D, which has only been discussed within the LSR WG. There may be individuals involved in both WGs, but that is not a PCE WG consensus. However, I suggest that the PCE WG's members (BCC'd) share their view on this poll using the LSR mailig list. Thanks, Julien On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > At the LSR WG meeting in Bangkok, there was general agreement that we > should adopt this draft given that the PCE WG believes it is useful. > Please indicate your support or objection prior to 12:00 AM UT, > Wednesday November 26^th , 2018. Note the authors may refresh the > draft to address some comments prior to that time. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > ___ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _ 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. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Support. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:11 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 At the LSR WG meeting in Bangkok, there was general agreement that we should adopt this draft given that the PCE WG believes it is useful. Please indicate your support or objection prior to 12:00 AM UT, Wednesday November 26th, 2018. Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior to that time. Thanks, Acee ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Yes/Support Regards, Mahendra From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 14 November 2018 03:41 To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 At the LSR WG meeting in Bangkok, there was general agreement that we should adopt this draft given that the PCE WG believes it is useful. Please indicate your support or objection prior to 12:00 AM UT, Wednesday November 26th, 2018. Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior to that time. Thanks, Acee ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Yes/support On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 16:53 Qin Wu wrote: > I support this work as one of coauthors. > > > > -Qin > > *发件人:* Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Acee Lindem (acee) > *发送时间:* 2018年11月14日 6:11 > *收件人:* lsr@ietf.org > *主题:* [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security > capability support in the PCE discovery - > draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 > > > > At the LSR WG meeting in Bangkok, there was general agreement that we > should adopt this draft given that the PCE WG believes it is useful. Please > indicate your support or objection prior to 12:00 AM UT, Wednesday November > 26th, 2018. Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some > comments prior to that time. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > ___ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Speaking as a WG member, I support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM To: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 At the LSR WG meeting in Bangkok, there was general agreement that we should adopt this draft given that the PCE WG believes it is useful. Please indicate your support or objection prior to 12:00 AM UT, Wednesday November 26th, 2018. Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior to that time. Thanks, Acee ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
