Hi WG,
Thank you to everyone that responded. WGLC is closed. Request authors to
handle comments. In parallel, we will proceed with sheperd review and
progressing the I-D towards publication.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 8:08 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email marks the star
Hi,
Sorry for being a bit late.
This document covers function we need to specify as the deployed PCE
scenarios get more complex.
I think the document is ready for publication. Just a few nits.
Best,
Adrian
= Nits =
1.
The
document does not state
I think "The
Hi,
I have reviewed the latest version of this draft.I think it is ready to move
forward.
The structure of the document and the textual descriptions are both clear and
well-organized.
Here are some minor comments:
The documents use many terms such as PCE, PCC, and LSP, which are all quite
stan
Hi PCE WG and authors,
Thanks for your hard work. I read this document and support the WG LC.
And It would be much better if the following two comments can be addressed.
1,in section 3.3, the reference may be indicated when LSP-DB-VERSION TLV is
first mentioned.
2,in section 6, a new PCEP-PATH-VE
Hi PCE WG and authors
Thanks for addressing past comments. Read through the latest sets of diffs
since my last read on this, looks good. Support WG LC on this.
Thanks
Andrew
From: Cheng Li
Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 8:38 AM
To: Zhenghaomian , Dhruv Dhody
, pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs
Support as a co-author. Welcome any comments to help the document to be better.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Zhenghaomian
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:04 AM
To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-state-s...@ietf.org
Subject: 回复: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-state-sync-11
As one o
