Hi Haomian, Thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9753>.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Apr 7, 2025, at 1:28 AM, Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Sandy, all, > > I am writing to approve the changes, thank you for the work. > > Best wishes, > Haomian > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > 发送时间: 2025年4月7日 9:19 > 收件人: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; Dhruv > Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> > 抄送: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; > slitkows.i...@gmail.com; pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; Roman Danyliw > <r...@cert.org>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> for > your review > > Greetings Haomian and Stephane, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and approval before > continuing with the publication process. Please review the document at the > URLs listed below and let us know if updates are needed. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > >> On Apr 2, 2025, at 9:23 AM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Dhruv, >> >> Thanks for your review. We have updated the text and posted the revised >> files here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html >> >> Diffs highlighting the more recent updates: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-lastrfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> AUTH48 diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48rfcdiff.html (side >> by side) >> >> Comprehensive diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> Thanks, >> RFC Editor/sg >> >> >>> On Apr 2, 2025, at 8:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sandy, >>> >>> One tiny nit, We have one instance of "PCinit message" and one >>> instance of "PCinitiate message"; please change both to PCInitiate >>> message (as per RFC 8281) >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Dhruv >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 9:11 PM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>> wrote: >>> Hi Cheng, >>> >>> Thank you for reply. We have updated the text and posted the revised >>> files. We believe you approve the RFC for publication, so we have noted >>> your approval on the AUTH48 page >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9753>. We will wait to hear from >>> your coauthors before continuing with publication. >>> >>> Current files: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html >>> >>> Diffs of the most recent update: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-lastdiff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-lastrfcdiff.html (side >>> by side) >>> >>> AUTH48 diffs: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48rfcdiff.html (side >>> by side) >>> >>> Comprehensive diffs: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by >>> side) >>> >>> Thank you, >>> RFC Editor/sg >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 2, 2025, at 2:02 AM, Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sandy, >>>> >>>> Just to be clear. I confirm that we can publish the RFC. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Cheng >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Cheng Li >>>> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 11:20 AM >>>> To: 'Sandy Ginoza' <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Zhenghaomian >>>> <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; >>>> pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; Roman >>>> Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 >>>> <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> for your review >>>> >>>> Hi Sandy, >>>> >>>> Sorry for my delay. >>>> I think the current text is good to me. >>>> >>>> Regarding the new text you suggested below, I think I can understand it >>>> without problem. And the current text in the link is also ok to me. >>>> Therefore, you can choose the better one from your point of view. >>>> >>>> Based the NEW text, we suggest this update: >>>> >>>>> The scope of how P and I flags are applied is defined in [RFC5440] >>>>> and is unchanged by this document. Therefore, these flags can only be >>>>> applied to an entire PCEP object; they cannot be applied at the >>>>> granularity of optional TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. >>>> >>>> For the notes in the XML file(which are not shown in the text/website), I >>>> think they can be removed. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Cheng >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:42 AM >>>> To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com> >>>> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Zhenghaomian >>>> <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; >>>> pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; Roman >>>> Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 >>>> <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> for your review >>>> >>>> Hi Cheng, >>>> >>>> We have updated the document as described below except for the item you’ve >>>> asked the authors to review. The updated files are available here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html >>>> >>>> AUTH48 diffs: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48rfcdiff.html (side >>>> by side) >>>> >>>> Comprehensive files: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by >>>> side) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please review our suggested update for the new text below and let us know >>>> if you approve. >>>> >>>>> OLD: >>>>> Further, it should be noted that similar to handling of P and I >>>>> flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP Object and could >>>>> not be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs encoded in >>>>> the PCEP Object. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> >>>>> This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be >>>>> applied to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be >>>>> applied to an entire PCEP object, and cannot be applied to the >>>>> granularity of an optional TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. >>>> >>>> >>>> Based the NEW text, we suggest this update: >>>> >>>>> The scope of how P and I flags are applied is defined in [RFC5440] >>>>> and is unchanged by this document. Therefore, these flags can only be >>>>> applied to an entire PCEP object; they cannot be applied at the >>>>> granularity of optional TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, we see this text commented out in the XML file. Please consider >>>> whether any action is needed; otherwise the notes will be removed. >>>> >>>> <!--Similarly in the case of an association group >>>> <xref target="RFC8697"/> such as Disjoint Association <xref >>>> >>>> target="RFC8800"/>, the PCE may need to completely relax the >>>> >>>> disjointness constraint in order to provide a path to all the LSPs >>>> >>>> that are part of the association.—> >>>> >>>> <!--By default, the PCE SHOULD set the P >>>> flag, unless a >>>> >>>> local configuration or local policy indicates that some constraints >>>> >>>> (corresponding PCEP objects) can be marked as optional and could be >>>> >>>> ignored by the PCC.--> >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> RFC Editor/sg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 12, 2025, at 2:07 AM, Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi RFC Editors, >>>>> >>>>> Please see my reply inline. Thanks for your work! >>>>> >>>>> Specially, authors, please review this modification proposal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OLD: >>>>> Further, it should be noted that similar to handling of P and I >>>>> flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP Object and could >>>>> not be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs encoded in >>>>> the PCEP Object. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> >>>>> This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be >>>>> applied to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be >>>>> applied to an entire PCEP object, and cannot be applied to the >>>>> granularity of an optional TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. >>>>> >>>>> Authors, please review this change. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Cheng >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 7:24 AM >>>>> To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com>; Zhenghaomian >>>>> <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com >>>>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; pce-...@ietf.org; >>>>> pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; r...@cert.org; >>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 >>>>> <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> for your review >>>>> >>>>> Authors, >>>>> >>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>>> >>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that >>>>> appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. >>>>> --> [Cheng] PCEP, Stateful, optional processing >>>>> >>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please >>>>> consider whether the suggested text conveys the intended meaning. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> [RFC5440] describes the handling of unknown objects as per the >>>>> setting of the P flag for the PCReq message. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> Setting the P flag in the PCReq message to handle unknown objects >>>>> is as described in Section 7.2 of [RFC5440]. >>>>> --> >>>>> [Cheng]OK >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Does marking something as optional allow the PCEP peer to >>>>> ignore the object? If yes, may we update the text as follows? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> In these cases, it would be useful to mark the objects as >>>>> 'optional' and they could be ignored by the PCEP peer. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> In these cases, it would be useful to mark the objects as >>>>> 'optional' so they could be ignored by the PCEP peer. >>>>> --> >>>>> [Cheng]OK >>>>> >>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this text. It refers to >>>>> the P and I flags, but then switches to "the flag". Does "the flag" >>>>> refer to the R flag, which has not yet been introduced? Please review >>>>> and let us know how the text may be clarified. >>>>> >>>>> Original (prior sentence included for context): >>>>> Thus, this document specifies how the already existing P and I >>>>> flags in the PCEP common object header could be used during the >>>>> stateful PCEP message exchange. Further, it should be noted that >>>>> similar to handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies >>>>> to full PCEP Object and could not be applied to the granularity of >>>>> an optional TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> Further, it should be noted that, similar to handling of P and I >>>>> flags in [RFC5440], the flag indicating that the constraint has >>>>> been relaxed applies to the full PCEP object and cannot be applied >>>>> at the granularity of an optional TLV encoded in the PCEP object. >>>>> --> >>>>> [Cheng]I do not think 'the flag' is correct here. It should not be the R >>>>> flag, but the 'P and I flags'. After discussing with Dhruv, we confirm >>>>> that we should use the flags(P and I flags). Please see the new text >>>>> below. >>>>> >>>>> OLD: >>>>> Further, it should be noted that similar to handling of P and I >>>>> flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP Object and could >>>>> not be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs encoded in >>>>> the PCEP Object. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> >>>>> This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be >>>>> applied to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be >>>>> applied to an entire PCEP object, and cannot be applied to the >>>>> granularity of an optional TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. >>>>> >>>>> Authors, please review this change. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] PCUpd seems to be exapnded slightly differently in two >>>>> places. Based on what we see in RFC 8231 (see below), we don't believe >>>>> the terms are interchangeable. Please review and let us know how/if >>>>> these should be made consistent? Perhaps Section 3.3.2 can just refer to >>>>> PCUpd and PCInitiate since those terms are introduced earlier in the >>>>> document? >>>>> >>>>> Section 1: Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) >>>>> This document defines a new flag, the R >>>>> (RELAX) flag in STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the PCEP common >>>>> object header to indicate a PCE speaker supporting P and I flags >>>>> processing, and also specifies how the P and I flags could be used >>>>> in the stateful PCE model to identify optional objects in the Path >>>>> Computation State Report (PCRpt) [RFC8231], the Path Computation >>>>> Update Request (PCUpd) [RFC8231], and the LSP Initiate Request >>>>> (PCInitiate) [RFC8281] message. >>>>> >>>>> Section 3.3.2: LSP Update Request (PCUpd) The I flag in the PCRpt >>>>> message [RFC8231] allows a PCC to indicate to a PCE whether or not >>>>> an optional object was processed in response to an LSP Update >>>>> Request (PCUpd) or LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From RFC 8231: >>>>> Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) >>>>> >>>>> Section 6.2 of RFC 8231: >>>>> A PCUpd message can carry more than one LSP Update Request. >>>>> --> >>>>> [Cheng]It takes few minutes to understand the problem. Ha, we can change >>>>> LSP update request to PCUpd message, and LSP Initiate request to PCinit >>>>> message. The purpose is not to emphasize the LSP, but the message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please >>>>> consider whether the suggested text is more clear. Otherwise, please >>>>> clarify. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> This document updates the handling of unknown objects in the >>>>> stateful PCEP messages as per the setting of the P flag in the >>>>> common object header in a similar way as [RFC5440], i.e. if a PCEP >>>>> speaker does not understand an object with the P flag set or >>>>> understands the object but decides to ignore the object, the entire >>>>> stateful PCEP message MUST be rejected and the PCE MUST send a >>>>> PCErr message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported Object" >>>>> [RFC5440]. >>>>> >>>>> Perahps: >>>>> This document updates the handling of unknown objects in the >>>>> stateful PCEP messages by setting the P flag in the common object >>>>> header in a similar way as described in [RFC5440]. That is, if a >>>>> PCEP speaker does not understand an object with the P flag set, or >>>>> if the PCEP speaker understands the object but decides to ignore >>>>> the object, the entire stateful PCEP message MUST be rejected, and >>>>> the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" >>>>> or "Not supported object" [RFC5440]. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Cheng]ok, thanks! Will avoid to use 'as per' next time, and try to >>>>> make the subject of a sentence clear 😊 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have lowercased "object" when it appears as >>>>> "PCEP object" to align with use in the referenced RFCs (e.g., 9753, >>>>> 5440). >>>>> Please let us know if any updates are needed. >>>>> --> >>>>> [Cheng]please follow the best practice, I am ok with lowercase or >>>>> uppercase. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of >>>>> the online Style Guide >>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature >>>>> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >>>>> >>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this >>>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. >>>>> --> >>>>> [Cheng]no change needed, thanks! >>>>> >>>>> I have review the diff file, the modification is ok to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> RFC Editor >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:16 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>> >>>>> Updated 2025/03/09 >>>>> >>>>> RFC Author(s): >>>>> -------------- >>>>> >>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>>>> >>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed >>>>> and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>>>> >>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>>>> your approval. >>>>> >>>>> Planning your review >>>>> --------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>>>> >>>>> * RFC Editor questions >>>>> >>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>>>> follows: >>>>> >>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>>>> >>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>>>> >>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>>>> >>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to >>>>> changes submitted by your coauthors. >>>>> >>>>> * Content >>>>> >>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>>>> - contact information >>>>> - references >>>>> >>>>> * Copyright notices and legends >>>>> >>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC >>>>> 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – >>>>> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>>>> >>>>> * Semantic markup >>>>> >>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>>>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that >>>>> <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>>>> >>>>> * Formatted output >>>>> >>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Submitting changes >>>>> ------------------ >>>>> >>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as >>>>> all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The >>>>> parties >>>>> include: >>>>> >>>>> * your coauthors >>>>> >>>>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >>>>> >>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>>>> >>>>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>>>> list: >>>>> >>>>> * More info: >>>>> >>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2U >>>>> SxI >>>>> Ae6P8O4Zc >>>>> >>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>>>> >>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>>>> >>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>>>> >>>>> An update to the provided XML file >>>>> — OR — >>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>>>> >>>>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>>>> >>>>> OLD: >>>>> old text >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> new text >>>>> >>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an >>>>> explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>>>> >>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that >>>>> seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, >>>>> deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream >>>>> managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require >>>>> approval from a stream manager. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Approving for publication >>>>> -------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email >>>>> stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use >>>>> ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your >>>>> approval. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Files >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> The files are available here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt >>>>> >>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by >>>>> side) >>>>> >>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-xmldiff1.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tracking progress >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9753 >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>> >>>>> RFC Editor >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> RFC 9753 (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13) >>>>> >>>>> Title : Extension for Stateful PCE to allow Optional >>>>> Processing of PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects >>>>> Author(s) : C. Li, H. Zheng, S. Litkowski >>>>> WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody >>>>> >>>>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
