Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07

Hi Dhruv, Yes, updated text is clear – thanks for providing it. (and sorry for delay). Regards, Samuel From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 7:06 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: Cheng Li ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org; pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07

)? Because RFC8231 is really talking only about new objects defined in that RFC (SRP, LSP,…) and not about older objects re-used in new PCEP messages. Thanks, Samuel From: Cheng Li Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:46 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07

Hi authors of this draft, I support this draft, but I still have a few minor comments: 1.Introduction section: * “Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.” -> typo * “…allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) message (sent to a PCE) whether the object must be taken into

Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02

Thanks, Dhruv. “draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-03” submitted, which fixed typo from previous mail. Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 5:43 AM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org Subject: Re:

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10

Thanks Quan, Makes sense now, then please use version, which you proposed in your previous mail. Regards, Samuel From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:02 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-posit

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10

Thanks Quan, Ack, I’m fine with your proposals + see inline (I skipped most of them as you already responded and there was not much to discuss  ). Regards, Samuel From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2024 3:23 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; d

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10

Hi Quan and PCE WG, I support adoption of this draft with a few minor/not blocking comments (I reviewed v11 as a lot of comments were addressed, so to avoid commenting same thing again even if v10 is being adoption). Abstract: “…Label Indicator (ELI)/EL pairs SHOULD be inserted in the SR-MPLS

Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02.txt

Hi PCE WG members, FYI - List of changes done in this version: - Introduced capabilities to negotiate support for features introduced in this draft - Added more restrictions for processing of PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV - Added section for new IANA registry for flags in PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV - Some

Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

Hi Dhruv, Just FYI: Security and manageability considerations sections added in latest (v08) version of the draft. Thanks, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 2:59 PM To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Any missed

Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

, Samuel From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 2:46 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo Hi Samuel, Noted! One comment from my side -- PLease add some analysis in the security consideration

Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

Hi PCE-chairs, Since we haven't received any other comments for this draft, I would like to ask for WGLC for this draft: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-07.html Thanks a lot, Samuel -Original Message- From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024

Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

Just small update - 07 version submitted now. Regards, Samuel -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 1:43 PM To: tom petch ; Dhruv Dhody Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo Hi Tom

Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

lot on those RFCs and we are inheriting already defined Flex-algo behavior from those as well, but it is hard to be correct now. I'll add pointers to SR policy architecture and SR architecture RFCs as well. Regards, Samuel -Original Message- From: tom petch Sent: Friday, January 12

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Sidor (ssidor) ; draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi Samuel, Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi

Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

Hi Tom, Since you responded to both mails (from me and from Dhruv) together, I'll respond here. Please see inline . Regards, Samuel -Original Message- From: tom petch Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 1:25 PM To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce

Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

Thanks a lot Tom for your comment. Please see inline . Regards, Samuel -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of tom petch Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 12:01 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo From: Pce

[Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo

Hi PCE WG, I would like to ask for WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo on behalf of authors. Are there any remaining issues/comments/questions which I (or co-authors) missed and which are not handled yet? URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo/ Thanks a lot, Samuel

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi all, Thanks a lot, to authors for doing this work. It is really important for supporting SR policies in PCEP. I support progress of this document to RFC. A few minor comments: * For TLVs in association section, there is explicitly mentioned that those are “single instance” TLVs

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Just small update: 01 version is posted now (It is addressing comments received during adoption poll, which I originally posted in in draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-06). Thanks for all valuable comments and for supporting this draft. Regards Samuel From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi PCE-chairs, I submitted version 00 (which is aligned with draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05) – it is waiting for chairs approval. I’ll upload 01 version with handled comments (from version 06) after approving submission of 00 version. (Sorry for delay – I’m on PTO, so my

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Thanks Quan, Updated version 06 (which includes suggestions from Ran and from you) was submitted. Regards, Samuel From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 10:57 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: d...@dhruvdhody.com; draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

specific setup types). Thanks a lot, Samuel From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 7:09 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

, December 14, 2023 10:22 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 Hi Samuel, Thanks for your quick reply! Yes, I agree with you

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi Ran, Thanks for your comments. Correct, we are just introducing new flag in existing TLV. Original title seems to be aligned with other drafts introducing new flags in that TLV, e.g.:

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

it is generic or applicable to specific setup type only. Would that work for you? Thanks, Samuel From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:24 AM To: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn; d...@dhruvdhody.com Cc: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: RE

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi Quan, Originally we explicitly listed From: Pce On Behalf Of xiong.q...@zte.com.cn Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:53 AM To: d...@dhruvdhody.com Cc: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of

Re: [Pce] IPR poll for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi all, I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been disclosed to the IETF. Regards, Samuel From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 11:40 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; praveen.maheshw...@airtel.com; Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) ; Jalil, Luay

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi WG, I support adoption of this draft (co-author). It provides useful extensions to PCEP for Circuit style policies, but those changes are potentially re-usable for other use cases, There is draft in spring, which is defining CS policy and it was adopted already:

Re: [Pce] In prep for adoption call for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions

Just to keep mail thread updated. New version submitted (and thanks again for your comments Dhruv). Regards, Samuel From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 10:27 AM To: Dhruv Dhody ; draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org

Re: [Pce] In prep for adoption call for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions

Hi Dhruv, Please see inline . Thanks a lot, Samuel From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2023 6:23 AM To: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org Subject: In prep for adoption call for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions Hi,

[Pce] Implementations of draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo draft

Hi all, I asked PCE WG members during IETF 118 PCE session for sending me (or to draft mailing list) information about any existing implementation of this draft, so we can track them properly. I'm sending it here as well as a reminder. Thanks a lot, Samuel

Re: [Pce] Subject: Re: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11

AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Hi Samuel， Thank you very much for your quick reply. Please find my notes below tagged [Ran]. Best Regards, Ran Original From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) mailto:ssi...@cisco.com

Re: [Pce] Subject: Re: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11

Hi Ran, Thanks a lot for your responses. Please see inline responses marked with [Samuel] Thanks, Samuel From: chen@zte.com.cn Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:28 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Hi

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11

Hi all, I support adoption of this draft, but I have a few minor (non-blocking) comments: 2. Terminology “EROO” – ERO already means “Explicit Route Object”, so why we have “Explicit Route Object Object”. Same applies to RROO vs RRO. I would just use ERO directly same way like it is done in

Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer Intra vs Inter-domain

Hi Dhruv, In case of path-computation done by PCE based on content of FAD (probably vast majority of cases), optimization metric will be specified in FAD, so it will not be possible to optimize based on other metric type on top of that. For original question: I agree with PSF – it would be

Re: [Pce] Mail regarding draft-ietf-pce-pcep

Hi Pavan, Ack, that is my interpretation as well – it should be possible to use TLV in OPEN object. Regards, Samuel From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 7:48 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: Dhruv Dhody ; Dhruv Dhody ; Marcel Reuter (External) ; pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf

Re: [Pce] Mail regarding draft-ietf-pce-pcep

Hi Pavan, Please see inline . Regards, Samuel From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 4:40 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: Dhruv Dhody ; Dhruv Dhody ; Marcel Reuter (External) ; pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Mail regarding

Re: [Pce] Mail regarding draft-ietf-pce-pcep

Hi Pavan, Is it possible to specify usecase a bit? I’m not against allowing Vendor Info object in OPEN message, but I personally tend to agree with Dhruv’s explanation. In general, PCEP open message is supposed to exchange/negotiate various capabilities of PCEP peers, timer values,

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor

Hi Julien, I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 9:52 AM To: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

Hi all, Since nobody else (besides Andrew and Peng Shaofu) had any other opinions/proposals, I’ll proceed with draft update. Regards, Samuel From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:50 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; peng.sha...@zte.com.cn Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

the signalled intention. Thanks Andrew From: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:31 AM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" mailto:andrew.st...@nokia.com>>, "peng.sha...@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn>

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

and we will end-up with various interop issues, so would need extra capabilities as well to advertise what is supported and what is not. Thanks, Samuel From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 5:18 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; peng.sha...@zte.com.cn Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

: Andrew Stone (Nokia) Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:24 PM To: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; d...@dhruvdhody.com Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension Hi Samuel, PCE WG I think your comparison points

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

. Please provide any comments. Thanks, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 10:12 AM To: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; 'Dhruv Dhody' Cc: pce@ietf.org; 'pce-chairs' Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension Hi Dhruv, Thanks for feedback. I

Re: [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664

(just small update – dropped some copy pasted statements from my response as I finally responded with inline comments) Regards, Samuel From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:27 PM To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: pce-chairs ; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: LSP

Re: [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664

uld also be optionally included in PCInitiate message. ” -> From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:29 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce-chairs ; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664 Hi Samuel, The feeling at th

Re: [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664

Hi PCE-chairs, Since there is no reasonable explanation provided in the mailing list - does that mean that RFC is "broken" and we need Errata to fix it? E.g. by making LSP identifiers TLV mandatory? Thanks, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Thursday, Februa

[Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664

Hi PCE WG, RFC8664 marked LSP identifiers TLV as optional: "The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY be present for the above PST type." https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#name-the-rp-srp-object But I don't see any clarification in that RFC, how SR policy endpoints/LSP-ID (may be needed for MBB)

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

/BGP-LS, so we need to encode only algorithm number (and potentially source IGP, but that is separate story). Thanks, Samuel From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 5:34 PM To: 'Dhruv Dhody' ; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: pce@ietf.org; 'pce-chairs' Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE SID

Re: [Pce] Question on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement

Hi Dhruv, Vishnu, “I think we can differentiate between an implementation that supports this extension - that MUST use UNPROTECTED PREFERRED whereas a legacy implementation would handle it as per their understanding of RFC 5440 which could be UNPROTECTED PREFERRED or UNPROTECTED MANDATORY.”

[Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

Hi all, I would like to get feedback from PCE WG for one extension proposed for existing SID-algo draft (currently expired), which is trying to cover all existing algorithm types as defined in

Re: [Pce] draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02

Hi Dhruv, Thanks a lot for your feedback. For comments received during IETF113 – I checked notes: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-113-pce?both And it seems to me that those should be covered already in latest version (v02), which will be presented. To be more specific: * Comment from

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll for draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-05

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. Thanks, Samuel From: Siva Sivabalan Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 10:26 PM To: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com; ssiva...@ciena.com

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo-05

Hi Jie, Please see inline . Regards, Samuel From: Dongjie (Jimmy) Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 5:07 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: draft-tokar-pce-sid-a...@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org; Mahendra Negi Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo-05 Hi Samuel, Sorry

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo-05

Hi Jie, Thanks for your comments. Please see inline : Regards, Samuel From: Dongjie (Jimmy) Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 4:45 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: draft-tokar-pce-sid-a...@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org; Mahendra Negi Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-tokar-pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo-05

Hi Jie, Combining responses for 1. and 2. as those are related: Encoding of SID/ERO-subobject level was used, because of multiple reasons: a) We may need to signal SL, which is explicitly configured by user (not just computed by PCE) and in such case user can potentially mix SIDs with

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo-05

Hi Ketan, Andrew, Thanks a lot, for your comments. 1. There is already plan to add support for Adjacency SIDs. The draft will be extended (hopefully before IETF113 draft submission cut-off) 2. I will check that 3. (This is related to questions from Andrew) - Yes, this is coming from

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll for draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo

...@gmail.com; pengshup...@huawei.com; ts...@juniper.net; mahend.i...@gmail.com; pce@ietf.org; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Subject: Re:IPR Poll for draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo Hi WG, I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF rules. Regards, PSF

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03

I support. Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:02 PM To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-pol...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03 Dear chairs and the WG The draft covers the

Re: [Pce] Request for Implementation info of PCEP SRv6 extension

Hi Cheng, Cisco has full implementation with experimental codepoints of this draft, something like this can be added: o Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc. o Implementation: IOS-XR PCE and PCC. o Description: Implementation with experimental codepoints o Maturity Level: Demo

Re: [Pce] [**EXTERNAL**] WG Adoption of draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-05

Hi WG, I support adoption of this draft. Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Yadav, Bhupendra Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:14 PM To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-koldychev-pce-multip...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] [**EXTERNAL**] WG Adoption of draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-05

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03

Hi Dhruv, I support adoption of this draft. Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:28 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Hi WG, We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.

Hi WG, I support WG adoption of this draft (as co-author). Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:11 PM Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. Hi WG, I support the WG adoption

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02

) ; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; ssiva...@ciena.com Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: IPR Poll on draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 Hi Hari, I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. Regards, Mustapha. From: Hariharan