I support the adoption and willing to work on it.
The Function Code section is not well specified and should refer to
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming that has requested new IANA
sub-registry "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors”.
In general it is unclear why do we need them and what does
Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review result: Has Nits
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comments. All the nits pointed out are corrected. We will
upload the revision once we have resolved Adrian's second comments.
Best regards,
Young
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of dan...@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, February
Dear WG Members,
I reviewed this draft and believe it is ready to move to the next stage.
Thanks,
Peter
==
Dr. / Director Peter(Choongul) Park
Biz Total Solution(BTS) Proj., KT Infra Lab.
34046 70 Yuseong-daero 1689beon-gil Yuseong-gu Daejeon Korea(South)
T:
Hi Adrian,
I have read the document and support the publication.
To authors few references are missing in sections 1.1/1.1.2/1.1.3, in case not
taken care.
Thanks,
Mahendra
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 08 February 2019
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your RTGDIR review! Especially thankful for providing suggested
texts in your comments. I hope the authors will spin out a new version SOON.
Just one point -
> 4. Page 5:
>
> Replace:
> The hierarchical relationship model is described in [RFC6805]. It is
>
Yes/Support.
This draft give controller the capabilities to design the SRv6 Path via PCEP
protocol.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 22:51, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> Yes/support. This is a very important companion draft to
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
Hi,
The WG last call completed without any dissent, but with only a few comments
of support.
There were some issues raised (including from Dan and me).
Authors:
Please post a revision that addresses the comments.
Working Group:
Please continue to send messages of support so that we know that
