Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
Thanks to everyone who responded. The I-D is shipped to the IESG. Thanks, Dhruv On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 9:37 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change > - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the > publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal > to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it). > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > > > Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE > Request Parameters Flags > > Author : Adrian Farrel > > Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > > Pages : 6 > > Date: 2019-11-07 > > > > Abstract: > >Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol > >(PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are > >defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE > >Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field > >that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry > >for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how > >an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted > >messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, > >unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. > > > >This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > ___ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > -- Sent from Mobile ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
I support the publication, thanks. Best wishes, Haomian -邮件原件- 发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Dhruv Dhody 发送时间: 2019年11月9日 0:07 收件人: pce@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt Hi WG, As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request > Parameters Flags > Author : Adrian Farrel > Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date: 2019-11-07 > > Abstract: >Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol >(PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are >defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE >Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field >that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry >for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how >an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted >messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, >unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. > >This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
Hard not to be sarcastic, but I'll try. Yes, I still support this document I wrote at the request of the chairs and with the support of the WG to fix an error in a WG RFC and which has already completed WG last call but now has a new name and another two weeks delay before it can go to IETF last call. If anyone asks why the IETF takes so long to produce RFCs, we might use this document as a good example. I know, not the chairs' fault. Best, Adrian -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt Hi WG, As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters Flags > Author : Adrian Farrel > Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date: 2019-11-07 > > Abstract: >Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol >(PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are >defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE >Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field >that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry >for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how >an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted >messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, >unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. > >This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
I Support the publication. -Qin 吴钦 Qin Mobile：+86-13914734360(Mobile Number) Email：bill...@huawei.com<mailto:bill...@huawei.com> 发件人： Jonathan Hardwickmailto:Jonathan.Hardwick=40metaswitch@dmarc.ietf.org>> 收件人： Dhruv Dhodymailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com>>;pcemailto:pce@ietf.org>> 主题： Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt 时间： 2019-11-09 16:54:23 I support publication. Cheers Jon -Original Message- From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt Hi WG, As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request > Parameters Flags > Author : Adrian Farrel > Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date: 2019-11-07 > > Abstract: >Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol >(PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are >defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE >Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field >that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry >for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how >an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted >messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, >unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. > >This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
+1 Regards, Jeff > On Nov 9, 2019, at 09:53, Jonathan Hardwick > wrote: > > I support publication. > Cheers > Jon > > -Original Message- > From: Dhruv Dhody > Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > > Hi WG, > > As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change > - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the publication of > the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal to enable us to judge > consensus (and justify it). > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. >> >>Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request >> Parameters Flags >>Author : Adrian Farrel >>Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt >>Pages : 6 >>Date: 2019-11-07 >> >> Abstract: >> Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol >> (PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are >> defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE >> Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field >> that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry >> for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how >> an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted >> messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, >> unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. >> >> This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ >> >> There are also htmlized versions available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >> tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> ___ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
I support publication. Cheers Jon -Original Message- From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt Hi WG, As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request > Parameters Flags > Author : Adrian Farrel > Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date: 2019-11-07 > > Abstract: >Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol >(PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are >defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE >Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field >that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry >for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how >an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted >messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, >unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. > >This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
Fully support this work. It removes the ambiguity regarding PCEP SRP object and the SP networks are using PCEP to manage congestion in the network. Thanks A.Raghuram Lead Member of Technical Staff Network Infrastructure and Services AT Services, Inc. 200 S. Laurel Av, Room C5-2Z01, Middletown, NJ 07748 O 732.420.2471 | ar2...@att.com This communication may contain information that is privileged, or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please note FYI that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 11:07 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt Hi WG, As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dstateful-2Dflags_=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=QNToJ4byfiy_4vy6H7dTgAPqN3XciMGI3LRm7GcpRS0=4jWZGh4Pilf5AM78JB_cjXTMlAeCh8OHSOOzaEZxcPY=91BNww-5xjEjT9cA13b_ywxPLKqvcYH0IaQrtno4B3s= The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request > Parameters Flags > Author : Adrian Farrel > Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date: 2019-11-07 > > Abstract: >Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol >(PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are >defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE >Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field >that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry >for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how >an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted >messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, >unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. > >This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf. > org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dstateful-2Dflags_=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMe > MTSQicvjIg=QNToJ4byfiy_4vy6H7dTgAPqN3XciMGI3LRm7GcpRS0=4jWZGh4Pilf > 5AM78JB_cjXTMlAeCh8OHSOOzaEZxcPY=91BNww-5xjEjT9cA13b_ywxPLKqvcYH0IaQ > rtno4B3s= > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_ht > ml_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dstateful-2Dflags-2D00=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeM > TSQicvjIg=QNToJ4byfiy_4vy6H7dTgAPqN3XciMGI3LRm7GcpRS0=4jWZGh4Pilf5 > AM78JB_cjXTMlAeCh8OHSOOzaEZxcPY=0wGDNe62PW0D0_fc8DE7kRsjV9ms64HqL479 > UClA9WM= > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf. > org_doc_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dstateful-2Dflags-2D00=DwICAg=LFY > Z-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=QNToJ4byfiy_4vy6H7dTgAPqN3XciMGI3LRm7GcpRS0=4j > WZGh4Pilf5AM78JB_cjXTMlAeCh8OHSOOzaEZxcPY=O37vCSzsbrDqJpcptvgE_rvbJl > X67h4QP2jOTaIcUuw= > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ftp-3A__ftp.ietf.org_intern > et-2Ddrafts_=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=QNToJ4byfiy_4vy6H7dTg > APqN3XciMGI3LRm7GcpRS0=4jWZGh4Pilf5AM78JB_cjXTMlAeCh8OHSOOzaEZxcPY > =MebsZqdmFXhqWuDTwf1ll73AdeBezI1rV-55Yt6RWrM= > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > man_listinfo_pce=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=QNToJ4byfiy_4vy6H > 7dTgAPqN3XciMGI3LRm7GcpRS0=4jWZGh4Pilf5AM78JB_cjXTMlAeCh8OHSOOzaEZxc > PY=ztlu4pan5lfBzTeYmBpdlOl4ftHrEUHpEr-ULsJ_FJw= ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_pce=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=QNToJ4byfiy_4vy6H7dTgAPqN3XciMGI3LRm7GcpRS0=4jWZGh4Pilf5AM78JB_cjXTMlAeCh8OHSOOzaEZxcPY=ztlu4pan5lfBzTeYmBpdlOl4ftHrEUHpEr-ULsJ_FJw= ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
Hi WG, As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > Title : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request > Parameters Flags > Author : Adrian Farrel > Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt > Pages : 6 > Date: 2019-11-07 > > Abstract: >Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol >(PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are >defined in RFC 8231. One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE >Request Parameters (SRP) object. That object includes a Flags field >that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry >for tracking assigned flags. However, RFC 8231 does not explain how >an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted >messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned, >unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages. > >This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
