Re: [Pce] IPR Poll for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional

I’m not aware of any IPR On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:39 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:40netflix@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF

Re: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8231 (6627)

Hi, Just to clarify the suggestion to have complete RBNF grammar at a living document was just for informational purposes (and not to bypass the IETF process). It stemmed from trying a different approach than the one already attempted in the past. I am all for trying the approach suggested by

Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-10

Hi John, > > *** > > *** 507,513 > > --- 558,573 > > > > > > In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate any > > + ^^ > > binding value. It instructs the PCC by sending a PCUpd