[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9752 for your review

Hi Sandy， Looks good to me, thanks! Sorry for my delay due to MPLS/SRv6 conference in Paris 😊 Thanks, Cheng -Original Message- From: Sandy Ginoza Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 7:06 PM To: Cheng Li Cc: RFC Editor ; Zhenghaomian ; msiva...@gmail.com; ssi...@cisco.com; z...@cisco.co

[auth48] Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9752 for your review

Good to me, thanks Alice! Cheng -Original Message- From: Alice Russo Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2025 1:23 AM To: Siva Sivabalan ; Zhenghaomian ; ssi...@cisco.com; Cheng Li ; z...@cisco.com Cc: pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; Roman Danyliw ; auth48archive@rfc

[auth48] Re: question: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 for your review

After discussing with Dhruv, "Optional processing of PCEP object " is preferred. Thanks, Cheng 李呈 Li Cheng Mobile: +86-15116983550(中国电话)/+33-625833229(法国电话) Mail: c...@huawei.com 发件人：Cheng Li mailto:c...@huawei.com>> 收件人：Sandy Ginoza mailto:sgin...@staff.rf

[auth48] Re: question: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 for your review

I think it should be " Optional Processing in Stateful PCEP". It is not Stateful PCE for Optional PCEP Objects. Thanks, Cheng -Original Message- From: Sandy Ginoza Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 8:29 PM To: slitkows.i...@gmail.com Cc: Zhenghaomian ; Dhruv Dhody ; Cheng Li ; RFC Editor

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9752 for your review

Hi RFC editor, Thanks for your work! The diff looks good to me. For the questions, please see my reply inline. Thanks, Cheng -Original Message- From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 7:23 AM To: Cheng Li ; Zhenghaomian ; msiva...@gmail.com; ssi...@cisco.com; z

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 for your review

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 gra

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 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

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 for your review

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' Cc: RFC Editor ; Zhenghaomian ; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody