Hi Hari,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 6:03 AM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and
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 IPR rules.
Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
Dhruv
Just an update on implementation, from our experience adding TLS1.3 to PCEP had
no complexity for PCEP itself.
All negotiation of selecting TLS 1.3 vs TLS 1.2 was on the TLS layer as per RFC
8446.
In addition, Authors I would be happy to join this draft if there is room.
Thanks
Hooman
Hi Samuel, ACK – rationale and comparisons sounds reasonable and good to me.
Thanks
Andrew
From: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)"
Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:48 AM
To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" , "peng.sha...@zte.com.cn"
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@ietf.org" ,
"slitkows.i...@gmail.com" ,
The PCE WG has placed draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13 in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Julien Meuric)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13/
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 27 March 2023 10:48
Dear WG,
During the PCE session today, there was clear support behind the PCEPS
updates I-D. Let's take it to the next level: do you consider that
draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13-02 should be adopted as a PCE WG item?
Hi Andrew,
My proposal was really to use something like P/I flag from PCEP object. In this
case, SID-algo constraint is TLV, so there is no way to enforce it using P
flag), so yes – I meant “permitted to compute and program a path as if LSPA
never contained the SID Algo TLV”.
If SID-algo
