Hi WG,
As a co-author, I have read the latest version of the document and I believe it
is ready for publication.
Thanks,
Mike.
On Monday, March 2nd, 2026 at 11:17 PM, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> The chairs decided to keep the WG LC open for an additional week. The WGLC
> will now end on 2026-03-10.
>
> We recognize that this period has been busy leading up to the IETF 125 draft
> deadline and want to ensure the group has adequate time to review and
> respond. Please use this additional time to provide your feedback on the
> mailing list.
>
> As a reminder, it is important for the working group to be explicit on the
> list. If you support publication of this document, please state:
>
> - You have read the latest version, and
> - In your opinion, it is ready for publication.
> As always, review comments are appreciated. Responses to the WGLC thread are
> essential to help the chairs determine consensus.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 10:56 PM Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This message starts a WG Last Call for:
>> draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19
>>
>> This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-02-24
>>
>> Abstract:
>> Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require
>> solutions that consist of multiple traffic paths that together form a
>> solution. However, current PCEP extensions can only return a single
>> traffic path, which cannot meet the requirements. This document
>> defines mechanisms to encode multiple paths for a single set of
>> objectives and constraints. This allows encoding of multiple Segment
>> Lists per Candidate Path within a Segment Routing Policy. The new
>> Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) mechanisms are
>> designed to be generic, which allows for future re-use outside of SR
>> Policy. The new PCEP mechanisms are applicable to both stateless and
>> stateful PCEP. Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 and RFC
>> 8281 to allow encoding of multiple Segment Lists in PCEP.
>>
>> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft on the mailing list.
>> If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate
>> your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the
>> latest version and that it is ready for publication in your opinion. As
>> always, review comments and nits are most welcome.
>>
>> A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dhruv & Julien
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-multipath/
>>
>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19.html
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
