Hi, Gunter:
Thanks for your review and suggestions!
I have updated the document and will submit it together with responses to other
experts' comments.
Some detail replies are inline below.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-邮件原件-
发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardin
Thanks Aijun.
Be well,
G/
-Original Message-
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:34 AM
To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) ; 'The IESG'
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org;
pce@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: [Pce] Gunter Van de Velde's No Object
Hi, Magnus:
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I have updated the document and will
submit it together with other expert's review.
Some detail responses are inline below.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-邮件原件-
发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@
Hi, Erik:
Thanks for your review!
The reason that we select only the "IP-in-IP" tunnel mode, instead of the all
possibilities/flexibilities that described in
https://iana.org/assignments/bgp-tunnel-encapsulation/, is that we want to keep
the solution light enough, and omit the tunnel capabilit
Hi, Roman, John and Dhruv:
I have updated the document according to your following suggestions:
1) Add the normative reference to draft-ietf-pce-iana-update, as John
suggested. Wish we can forward “draft-ietf-pce-iana-update” in fast track.
2) Add the suggested descriptions from Dhr
Hello Aijun,
Thanks for your reply and the changes that I hope will be in -35.
About section 12: up to you whether the authors/WG want to keep simulation and
‘on roadmap’ implementations, for me this does not really fit ‘implementations’.
About section 13: adding the URL for IANA registry (as a
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the
IETF.
Title: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions
for Native IP Networks
Authors: Aijun Wang
Boris Kha
Hi, All experts:
I have uploaded the updated version of the IESG WGLC document, and wish it
address all the comments received until now.
If there is still any existing comments not solved, or new comments, please let
me know.
I also removed the original section for the implementation considerat
Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please r
Hi Aijun,
Thanks for the quick turnaround.
I didn’t have time to do a full review but I notice you appear to have done a
global search-and-replace of “should” with “SHOULD”. This has led to a new
problem; Roman dropped his old DISCUSS (thanks for that) but entered a new one
based on the new us
Hi Dhruv, Adrian, WG,
Proposed changes looks good to me and +1 for moving this through. The diff text
was a clear easy read.
Thanks
Andrew
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 11:42 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dhody-pce-iana-upd...@ietf.org
,
draft-farrel-pce-experimental
Hi Aijun,
Apart from the global replacement of should/SHOULD, I also noticed the
following issues in -35.
(1) Abstract
To handle Gunter's comment, you made the following change.
17 Abstract
> 18
> 19 This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication
> 20 Prot
Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar
Review result: Has Issues
Hi,
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF dra
Hi all
I find this draft useful, support.
Thanks
Hooman
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 11:42 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dhody-pce-iana-upd...@ietf.org;
draft-farrel-pce-experimental-err...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update
CAUTION
Hi, Zaheduzzaman:
Thanks for your review and comments.
Some detailed responses are inline below.
If you agree or have other suggestions, please let me know. I will update the
document accordingly later to reflect our consensus.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-邮件原件-
发件人: forwar
Hi, Dhruv:
Except the “should/SHOULD” concern, which I will check it carefully later and
reply to John in another separate mail, I have updated the document again
according to your suggestions. I will upload the updated document later once
the “should/SHOULD” issues are solved.
Thanks fo
Hi Aijun, Zahed,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:42 AM Aijun Wang
wrote:
> Hi, Zaheduzzaman:
>
> Thanks for your review and comments.
> Some detailed responses are inline below.
> If you agree or have other suggestions, please let me know. I will update
> the document accordingly later to reflect our
19 matches
Mail list logo
