Hi Aijun,
Thank you for your comments.
I wanted to focus on the 3rd point. I remember this being discussed
perhaps in the previous incarnation of the draft. The main motivation
in PCEP is to provide a "standard" container and mechanism to
associate (and encode the policy) and leave the actual
Hi, Authors:
I Just have a quick view of this draft, and has some points wanted to be
clarified:
1. This draft defines one new association type (policy association type)
that follows the procedures described in RFC8697 and attached TLV? Is it
right?
2. According to the text described in
I support this document.
It provides a useful mechanism to apply policies either on the PCC or on the
PCE.
Comment: it should be clarified whether PCUpd message can be used instead of
the PCInit message when updating the PAG that is "enforced by the PCC". I
believe PCUpd can be used, but the
Hi WG,
A reminder to the WG to be more vocal. I am copying this slide from
the chair's WG status slide
[https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-pce-1-introduction-01]
> Please be Vocal
>
> o During WG Adoption and WG LC calls, the response is less.
>
> o Please be vocal on the
