Looks like I was somewhat right with “unpopular”
Of course an (unpopular) option would be to tell the PCE WG that it is not
acceptable to use the RSVP-TE registries in this way, and let them know that
if they want to specify paths for other uses they should use a new PCEP ERO
and RRO
Hi again, Dhruv.
Still not pushing this idea, but still trying to make sure it is correctly
understood….
Of course an (unpopular) option would be to tell the PCE WG that it is not
acceptable to use the RSVP-TE registries in this way, and let them know that
if they want to specify paths
Hi Adrian!
Got it! Thanks for your patience in clarifying your proposal! I finally
understood :)
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:55 PM Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi again, Dhruv.
>
>
>
> Still not pushing this idea, but still trying to make sure it is correctly
> understood….
>
>
>
> Of
Hi Adrian,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:36 PM Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Looks like I was somewhat right with “unpopular”
>
>
>
> Of course an (unpopular) option would be to tell the PCE WG that it is not
> acceptable to use the RSVP-TE registries in this way, and let them know
> that
> if they want
