Hi PCE'rs,
This WGLC has ended. Thank you to the WG for the useful feedback; thank
you to the authors for resolving the comments and updating the I-D
accordingly. I'll now proceed with the shepherd review.
Thanks,
Julien
On 06/09/2024 14:23:58 julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all,
Sinc
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for your review.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 7:21 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) wrote:
> Hi Julien and PCE WG,
>
> I support progress of this document.
>
> 3 minor (non-blocking) comments:
> 1. Do we need to expand "PCEP" in document title? (It seems to be expanded
> in most of PCEP RF
: 18 September 2024 09:27
To: julien.meu...@orange.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-iana-update
Hi Julien and PCE WG,
Thanks for the useful and meaningful work! I support the progress of this
document.
I am a liitle confused that why RFC9357 is liste
;
>
> *From:* xiong.q...@zte.com.cn
> *Sent:* 18 September 2024 09:27
> *To:* julien.meu...@orange.com
> *Cc:* pce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Pce] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-iana-update
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Julien and PCE WG,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the useful
Thanks, Quan.
You make a good point, I think.
Dhruv, if you have the pen, I see some smart quotes in the Abstract.
A
From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn
Sent: 18 September 2024 09:27
To: julien.meu...@orange.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-iana
Hi Julien and PCE WG,
Thanks for the useful and meaningful work! I support the progress of this
document.
I am a liitle confused that why RFC9357 is listed as informative references
while other PCEP registries are listed as normative references. Thanks!
Best Regards,
Quan
<<[Pce] WG Last Ca
Hi Julien and PCE WG,
I support progress of this document.
3 minor (non-blocking) comments:
1. Do we need to expand "PCEP" in document title? (It seems to be expanded in
most of PCEP RFCs)
2. In section 3.1, shouldn't we use normative SHOULD/MUST when specifying what
an "experiment" should/will
Support moving this through.
Thanks
Andrew
From: julien.meu...@orange.com
Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 at 8:24 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-iana-update
Hi all,
Since we have consensus, let's move forward with this simple fix to [1],
as agreed with the I
On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 2:03 AM Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Thanks Julien.
>
> This is good and speedy progress (proof, if any were needed , that the
> IETF does not need to take multiple years to make simple changes).
>
> As a co-author, I am content with the text and think it is ready to move
> forwa
Thanks Julien.
This is good and speedy progress (proof, if any were needed , that the IETF does not need to take multiple years to make simple changes).
As a co-author, I am content with the text and think it is ready to move forward.
10 matches
Mail list logo
