Hi,
I think Dhruv addition is good.
Should be added to the document.
On 30 July 2014 06:46, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> >
> > Hi Dhruv.
> >
> > I would say that, if the intend was to allow the specified TLV in objects
> > where optional TLVs do not exist, it would not be phrased like t
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the
IETF.
Title : Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path
Computation Element communication Protocol
Au
Hi,
I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Thanks
Kiran Koushik(Co-Author)
===
Dear authors of the aforementioned document,
Has all IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib been disclosed in
compliance
with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
This looks good to me.
Thanks,
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com]
> Sent: 30 July 2014 11:47
> To: Julien Meuric; pce@ietf.org; 'Adrian Farrel' (adr...@olddog.co.uk); Fatai
> Zhang
> Cc: Siva Sivabalan (msiva)
> Subject: RE: [Pce] I-D Action: d
Hi Julien,
>
> Hi Dhruv.
>
> I would say that, if the intend was to allow the specified TLV in objects
> where optional TLVs do not exist, it would not be phrased like this. All the
> same, it makes no harm to add explicitly "allowing optional TLVs" in the I-D.
Here is my suggested wording -
Hi Dhruv.
I would say that, if the intend was to allow the specified TLV in
objects where optional TLVs do not exist, it would not be phrased like
this. All the same, it makes no harm to add explicitly "allowing
optional TLVs" in the I-D.
By the way, your quotes allows us to catch a weird ex
Hi Authors, WG,
As we are in midst of a bis for 7150, I wanted to bring this to the notice of
the WG.
There was a offline discussion about the use of VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV in the
LSP object defined in stateful PCE draft.
In Abstract it says..
This document defines a facility to carry ven
