On 16/05/17 09:55, Julien Meuric wrote:
> Dear authors,
>
>
>
> Could you please send an email to the PCE mailing list saying whether
> you are aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
> and, if so, if it has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules?
> (See RFCs
This new version of the stateful PCE draft resolves the comments received
during IETF last call.
Thanks for your patience!
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 17 May 2017 15:47
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Julien,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 16 May 2017 08:55
To: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Final IPR Check for
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element of the IETF.
Title : PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE
Authors : Edward Crabbe
Ina Minei
Hi all
Thanks for your feedback on this issue. I think we are probably in a position
to close this issue down. To summarize:
- The original intent was that the PCE MUST close the session.
- It seems that nobody has implemented the "exiting resource limit exceeded
state" notification.
On the
On 09/05/17 10:50, Ramon Casellas wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> This is indeed making me raise more questions than expected.
>
> - Reading the section I got the feeling that any event preventing to
> reach full sync state caused a PCErr (now PCNtf) and a MUST session
> close. was it the intent?
Hello
