Yes, support.
Regards,
Tarek
From: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) jvass...@cisco.commailto:jvass...@cisco.com
Date: Monday, 11 March, 2013 4:13 PM
To: pce@ietf.orgmailto:pce@ietf.org pce@ietf.orgmailto:pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware as a new WG
document ?
Support.
Regards,
Tarek
On 2014-03-04 5:51 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) jvass...@cisco.com wrote:
Dear WG,
As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support
for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt
as a PCE WG.
Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if
Support.
Regards,
Tarek
On 2014-09-14, 6:06 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) jvass...@cisco.com wrote:
Dear WG,
We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting
draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt and this work
has considerably progressed in other WG.
Are you in favor of adopting
Hi authors,
Currently, the document proposes a numbered-based ID for the profiles. The
name-based IDs are in practice more favourable in deployment (an example
is the symbolic name for PCE instantiated LSP).
Do you plan to extend the PATH-PROFILE object to carry textual based IDs?
Also, it would
Hi Matt,
We¹d like to ask for a 10-15mins slot to present the updates for TE and
RSVP YANG models in the joint yang session.
for drafts:
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te
draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp
Regards,
Tarek
On 2016-03-17, 12:20 PM, "Matt Hartley (mhartley)"
wrote:
>All,
>
Yes/support.
Regards,
Tarek
From: Pce on behalf of Jonathan Hardwick
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 12:59 PM
To: "pce@ietf.org"
Cc: "draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p...@ietf.org"
Hi PCE WG and chairs,
Yes/support this work to be adopted.
Regards,
Tarek
From: Pce on behalf of Jonathan Hardwick
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:05 AM
To: "pce@ietf.org" , "draft-barth-pce-association-bi...@ietf.org"