I support the adoption of the draft. It is important for the dynamic SRv6 TE
with central control.
Best Regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 2:47 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject:
Hi WG,
Thanks to all of you who responded on the mailing list and offline on this.
Your chairs, AD and Jon worked with Alvaro on his concern and the
compromise that we came up with is to move this to appendix (without the
use of normative language). We will also incorporate suggestion made by
Dear Mahendra Singh Negi, Cheng Li, Siva Sivabalan, Prejeeth Kaladharan:
An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "PCEP
Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane"
(draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat
on and has
Hi all,
I reviewed the draft and personally support WG adoption because it is very
important work.
Few comments:
1) Jeff earlier provided the comments about Function Code section (page 11), I
would like to add mine: there are only End.DX6, End.DT6 functions - how about
End.DT4, End.DX4?
Support as co-author.
This document defines required PCEP extensions to support SRv6 path
provisioning by PCE (Controller), and is a necessary building block of SRv6
control plane.
Regards,
Mahendra
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
