Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The SHOULD in Section 10 and the RECOMMENDED in Section 7.3 seem to be unsupported. Why might an implementer choose not to do what they say? What's the impact to interoperability? I echo Roman's question about the document's status. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
