Hi PCE-chairs,
Since we haven't received any other comments for this draft, I would like to
ask for WGLC for this draft:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-07.html
Thanks a lot,
Samuel
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 1
Hi Samuel,
Noted!
One comment from my side -- PLease add some analysis in the security
consideration, an empty security consideration is bound to raise eyebrows!
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 7:01 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
wrote:
> Hi PCE-chairs,
>
> Since we haven't received any other
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for reminding me Security consideration section, I was tracking it
together with Manageability considerations and I missed it somehow (and it
seems that WG was not missing it as well). I’ll try to submit new version with
that change included by beginning of next week.
Regards,
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready
I am the assigned routing reviewer for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-13.
Summary:
This draft focuses on extending the PCEP (Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol) to support Segment Routing (SR) policies, specifically
detailing the
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why
/ Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoptio
The PCE WG has placed draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Dhruv Dhody)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/
___
Pce mailing list
Pce
Hi Authors,
In preparation for adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and
contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR
rules.
Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:
- I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be dis
