I've reviewed the latest version (v20) of the draft and believe it is ready to progress to the next stage.
Regards, -Pavan On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 8:17 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] >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
