Hi all,
It has been a while since draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor started to
document how to extend the scope of RFC 7470. It is now time to consider
its adoption by the WG.
Do you think draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-16 [1] is ready to
become a PCE work item? Please express your supp
Hi Authors,
In preparation for WG 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
Hi Authors,
In preparation for WG 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
Hi PCE WG,
We have clear support to adopt this work as a WG item. Thank you, all.
@Authors: Please submit the I-D as draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-00
when the submission tool reopens (starting next Saturday).
Cheers,
Dhruv & Julien
On 20/06/2023 09:46, Julien Meuric wrote:
Hi
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path for an early code point allocation on the
association type referred to in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-11#name-iana-considerations
RFC 7120 requires to meet the following
Dear PCE WG,
This message starts a 2-week WG last call on
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-01 [1]. Please, be express any comments you
have about this document using the PCE mailing list.
This WGLC will end on Wednesday 20th September 2023.
Thanks,
Julien
--
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
Hi all,
This LC has ended. A few comments have been shared (thank you Stéphane).
@Authors: please, resolve them.
In the meantime, we'll proceed with RtgDir and SecDir review.
Thanks,
Julien
Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:09:38 +0200
From: Julien M
Hi all,
No concerns have been expressed about this early allocation. We'll thus
proceed to the next step.
Thanks,
Dhruv & Julien
On 28/07/2023 15:58, Julien Meuric wrote:
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path for an early c
Dear PCE WG,
As suggested by Sean during the WG meeting today, this message starts a
2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02 [1]. Please, express
any comments you have about the latest revision of this document (diff
in [2]) using the PCE mailing list..
This WGLC will end on Friday
Hi all,
This 2nd WG LC has ended. No concerns have been expressed. Thanks Adrian
and Andrew for reviewing.
@authors: It will probably be caught later in the process but make sure
to address Adrian's comment as part of the next revision.
Thanks,
Julien
On 09/11/2023 18:13, Julien M
Hi John,
I guess Lars points "native" out because it appears in the milestones.
It's there because it's reusing the title of the associated draft, which
is a reference to the title of RFC 8821...
As I'm not a "native" English speaker, I can't really evaluate how much
offensive the term is. I
Hi John,
I agree with most changes but the one below. If we get rid of the
MPLS-specific langage, then I feel the term "router" isn't generic
enough. Depending on the data plane technology, the head-end/ingress may
indeed be referred to as a ROADM, a cross-connect, a bridge, a switch,
etc. I
Hi all,
We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to
progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense
than an independent submission.
As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become
a PCE WG document? Please share your feed
Forwarding to the list.
-- Original Message --
From: "Sivabalan, Siva"
Date: 15/04/2024 01:07 BST
Subject: RE: [**EXTERNAL**] FW: [Pce] IPR poll for
draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
disclosed in accordance with IET
Hi all,
For an experimental document, we have a decent level of support and no
objection. Every author has responded to the IPR check. The I-D is thus
adopted by the PCE WG.
@authors: Please, resubmit it as draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-00.
Thanks,
Julien
On 04/04/2024 18:18, Julien Meuric wrote
Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang,
I've reviewed the aforementioned document to prepare its publication
request. The I-D is almost ready to move forward and only has minor
issues and nits that should be addressed before sending it to the IESG.
Minor issues:
- The introduction doesn't m
Hi all,
As a shepherd of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang, I'd be happy to know if you
have an implementation of the PCEP YANG module specified in the I-D, or
if you have plans to do so.
You may of course share your answer privately if you wish.
Thank you,
Julien
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cry
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for addressing my comments. The new version looks good to me.
Please note however that idnits shouts because of too long lines: have
you tried circumvent it?
Cheers,
Julien
On 17/05/2024 08:51, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
HI Julien,
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 7:57 PM wrote:
D
Hi all,
FYI
The IETF tools development team identified an error in the interface
between the IETF registration system and the datatracker that mistakenly
marked people as volunteers for the 2024 NomCom. (Please note that
volunteering via the registration system is not offered for IETF 120
re
Hi all,
In his review of the "native IP" draft, John suggested to consider
adjusting to "IETF Review" the allocation policy of some of the PCEP
registries currently using "Standards Action". Dhruv has submitted
draft-dhody-pce-iana-update to quickly resolve this concern and bring
higher consi
Hi Samuel.
Assuming we get consensus on option 1, I believe it does make sense to
add a sentence in the I-D leaving explicitly the door open for a further
extension.
Thanks,
Julien
On 31/07/2024 09:41, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) wrote:
Does it make sense to explicitly mentioned in the draft tha
Hi all,
We have clear support and no objection on adopting this small I-D: it is
now a PCE WG item.
@Authors: please re-submit the draft as draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-00.
@Authors of draft-farrel-pce-experimental-errors: please talk to the
authors of the aforementioned I-D to consider adding
Hi all,
Since we have consensus, let's move forward with this simple fix to [1],
as agreed with the IESG. This message starts a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-01 [2]. Please share your support or comments
on the PCE mailing list by Friday September 20.
Thank you,
Julien
Hi.
Beware of the date and note the comment about manual posting.
Julien
Message original
De :Internet-Drafts Administrator
Pour : IETF Announcement list
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Initial Version (-00) cut-
off is this coming Monday, July 4, 2011. Pl
Hi PCErs.
It is time to start sending your requests for slots during the PCE
meeting in Quebec (should you need one). Please include:
- a title or an I-D to point to (we will reuse its title),
- an estimated duration (try to focus on issues, avoid full I-D
descriptions),
- _JP_, _Dan_ and mys
FYI
Message original
De : NomCom Chair
This is the Third call for Volunteers for the 2011-12 Nomcom. We are
almost through the volunteer period so if you are considering
volunteering, please do so very soon.
We have had a very good response to the initial call for volunt
Hi Young.
Thank you for your feedback. With respect to the criteria described in
the companion e-mail sent today to the list, a slot has been allocated
for the WG I-D about WSON requirements. For the other documents, please
use the mailing list as much as possible to trigger technical discussi
Hi Ramon.
My interference below.
Cheers,
Julien
Le 01/08/2011 10:11, Ramon Casellas a écrit :
El 01/08/2011 6:16, JP Vasseur escribió:
On Jul 31, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Ramon Casellas wrote:
As detailed below, I tend to think there is a use case to be able to
dynamically map "TE enabled ABRs"
Hi PCE WG.
The updated charter is on line, it is now time to move some of our work
forward.
There has been much discussion and work about
draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures (version 7 already,
formerly 2 I-Ds). This message starts a poll on adoption of
draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inte
Hi PCE WG.
The framework for hierarchical PCE has been there for long, discussed
several times and was pending the charter update. This is a poll for
adopting draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-06 as WG document. Please reply to
this message to express either your support, i.e. you consider the I-D
Le 20/09/2011 17:08, Julien Meuric a écrit :
Hi PCE WG.
The framework for hierarchical PCE has been there for long, discussed
several times and was pending the charter update. This is a poll for
adopting draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-06 as WG document. Please reply
to this message to express
Hi PCE WG.
If you intend to present during our meeting in Taipei, please send a
message to _both_ chairs and secretary not later than Monday 31st
October. Include the I-D/presentation title, the estimated duration and
the (forecast) presenter's name.
Like last time, please keep in mind that
FYI
Message original
De :rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6417
Title: How to Contribute Research Results
to Internet Standardization
Author: P. Eardley
.
If you have any comment, please contact both chairs and secretary.
Thank you,
JP & Julien
Le 17/10/2011 14:55, Julien Meuric a écrit :
Hi PCE WG.
If you intend to present during our meeting in Taipei, please send a
message to _both_ chairs and secretary not later than Monday 31st
Oct
Hi Fatai.
As co-author of draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, I believe you will agree
on the fact that having a Switching Capability per ODUk layer would make
the use of objects including a Switching Cap field rather
straightforward and enables a fine-grained resource description, e.g. in:
- REQ-
Hi.
It looks like this has not reached the PCE mailing list. Comments are
welcome.
Julien
Message original
Title: LS358 - SG15 OTNT Standardization Work Plan -> pce
Submission Date: 2012-01-31
URL of the IETF Web page: /liaison/1141/
Please reply by 2012-08-27
From: ITU-T
Hi all.
Please take the time to read the rules about disclosing intellectual property as
expressed in RFC 3979 and
athttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. Your duties if
you are aware of your IPR in IETF work are either to disclose it (or have your company
disc
Oscar (and others),
Your point is not clear to me. On the one hand, I understand you support
having some work on stateful PCE, hence adding it to our charter. On the
other hand, the current question is *not* on a charter update, but on
adopting a particular I-D as a PCE WG document.
Therefore,
The MPLS 2012 International Conference, the 15th Annual International
Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be held October 28 -
31, 2012, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee is
soliciting abstracts summarizing a proposed presentation representing
original/unpublished wo
nd a maximum of 1 page, including figures and
diagrams, speaker’s name, affiliation, and contact information
to the Technical Program Committee at ipop2012-...@pilab.jp.
Please see http://www.pilab.jp/ipop2012/ for more details.
Kind regards,
Hiroaki Harai, Julien Meuric, Eiji Oki
iPOP 2012 TP
Hi all.
If a slot has been allocated for you in the agenda for our meeting in
Paris (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-pce.htm),
please send your corresponding slides to Dan _and_ chairs by Tuesday 27.
In order to have a fruitful meeting, keep in mind that you are not
suppo
Hi CCAMPers.
Following the meeting this morning, I would like to comment on the
numerous references to PCE with my chair hat on.
First, I am glad to see the PCE architecture being encompassed as a
relevant part of various proposals. Nevertheless, as said during several
PCE meetings, when it
Hi Dhruv.
In any case, what you propose is the expected way of progressing a WG
document. Thank you for mentioning it: it is always better when authors
open the discussion themselves.
Another item to be discussed is on the type of document (standard track
/ experimental): feedback on this fr
Hi all.
A first version of the minutes for our meeting in Paris is available:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-pce.html (thank
you Dan for taking and polishing them). Should you have any comment,
please contact the chairs, CCing our secretary.
Regards,
Julien
_
Hi Meral.
I believe the freshly posted minutes bring an answer to you question.
Beyond the generic scope in which this I-D was presented, I feel the
advantages and drawbacks of that proposal are off balance. On the one
hand, focusing on a single PCE solution removes a lot from the PCE
archite
FYI
Message original
From: The IESG
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
Disclosure Rules'
as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decisi
Hi all.
Even though some issues need to be to addressed in the next steps, it
looks like there is good support to adopt
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence as a PCE WG document.
One item is still on hold. Most authors agreed to move forwards with an
experimental document. Has the WG any conc
FYI
Message original
From: The IESG
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy'
as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the n
Hi WG.
I have not seen any comment on the proposal below, nor on the existing
IPR. As a result, authors, could you please submit
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-00 as an experimental I-D?
Thanks,
Julien
Le 04/05/2012 17:12, Julien Meuric a écrit :
Hi all.
Even though some issues
Hi authors.
Here is the chair review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02. No blocking
issue, but a few fixes to consider.
--
Section 1
-
Page 4
s/egress in known/egress is known/
-
Sub-section 1.1
The last 2 paragraphs of section 1.1 (page 5) duplicate with the
penultimate one
Hi.
This WG LC has ended. Authors, please address or discuss received
comments and publish an updated I-D.
Regards,
JP & Julien
Le 08/06/2012 16:37, julien.meu...@orange.com a écrit :
Hi all.
The document has been stable for a while and the traffic on the list
is low: the time seems appr
Hi Adrian.
The 1st purpose you advocate is indeed relevant in the document. Then,
there is no reason to drop only the 3rd paragraph. The proposed
sub-section looks all right to me and, obviously, it does not preclude
to mention it in others I-Ds. I think this addresses my comment.
Cheers,
J
Hi Dan.
Thanks for addressing my comments.
I believe there is just one question pending, about section 4.7: "Is
there a particular reason why the cancellation option is missing from
the timeout case, while mentioned in the child error case?"
Cheers,
Julien
Le 28/06/2012 00:01, Daniel King
Hi PCE WG.
The draft agenda for IETF 84 currently schedules PCE in its usual slot,
i.e. the same as RTGWG (namely Thursday at 3:20 PM). If you wish for
some discussion time in the PCE agenda, please send a request to the
chairs and secretary, including the title of associated draft(s),
expect
Dear WG.
The draft agenda for the next PCE meeting in Vancouver is available on
www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/agenda/agenda-84-pce.
Two comments:
- A typo (unexpectedly) made it to the slot request e-mail: our meeting
has actually been scheduled on *Tuesday* afternoon since the beginning;
- We
Hi all.
Presenters having a slot during the PCE meeting next Tuesday are
requested to send their slides to the chairs and secretary by *Sunday
29th*. If not, your slot may be moved to the end of our (very tight)
agenda...
Thanks,
Dan, JP & Julien
Le 20/07/2012 11:12, Julien Meur
FYI: the NomCom needs more volunteers in the pool for random selection.
Message original
De : NomCom Chair
We are currently looking for volunteers to serve on the 2012-2013 NomCom.
As you know, the success of the NomCom process depends crucially on
having a large pool of
FYI
-
The MPLS 2012 Conference (the 15th annual event) program is now posted
and is available at www.mpls2012.com, or
Tutorial (Sun): http://www.isocore.com/mpls2012/program/tutorials.ht
Hi Ramon, hi contributors from shadow.
We appreciate the effort of all those who are working on this work. It
will be interesting to discuss the progress during our meeting in
Atlanta. In the meantime, do not hesitate to share with the WG using the
mailing list, like your message below.
One
Hi PCE'rs.
You may have noticed that a draft agenda for our meeting during IETF 85
is online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/85/agenda/pce/
Any comments should be sent to the chairs. Presenters are requested to
send their slides by Sunday 4th.
Thanks,
JP & Julien
___
Oscar, all,
There are multiple issues in your messages, let us try to address them
step by step.
About the adoption of draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce, your choice of
words suggests that you are taxing the chairs of a process failure in
building a WG consensus. However, you finally agree not o
Hi all and best wishes for 2013.
This e-mail starts a WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.
Please send your comments to the PCE. You may review the document in
front of the corresponding extension I-D, which should be last called soon.
This WG LC will end on Wednesday January 30,
Hi all.
This WG LC has ended. I will send my review soon. Authors, please
address and/or discuss the comments received to build a proper update.
Thanks,
Julien
Le 15/01/2013 18:34, Julien Meuric a écrit :
Hi all and best wishes for 2013.
This e-mail starts a WG last call on draft-ietf
date/referred to so as to accommodate/
--
Section 5
-
- s/PCE extensions/PCEP extensions/
--
Section 8
-
The reference section deserves an update: evolving documents, comments
addressed in this I-D, missing spaces after commas, authors' first names
and surnames in various
As a reminder on cut off and secretariat...
Message
From: Internet-Drafts Administrator
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Initial Version (-00) cut-
off is this coming Monday, February 18th, 2013. Please note that, because
the AMS office is closed this Monday, man
The usual and useful reminder before the week-end...
Message original
De :Internet-Drafts Administrator
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final Submission (version -01
and up) cut-off is Monday, February 25, 2013.
All Final Version (-01 and up) submissions are
Hi PCE'rs.
The agenda for our meeting in Orlando has been updated:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-pce
Due to the time constraints, we could not accommodate all the received
requests. We have thus enforced the same policy as before: new I-Ds
should have been discussed on
On behalf of Ina and the TPC:
Dear PCE colleagues,
The MPLS 2013 International Conference, the 16th Annual International
Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be held November
17-20, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee is soliciting
abstracts summarizing a proposed
Hi Ina.
Indeed, there is no poll for WG adoption in progress, which remains in
the hands of the chairs. One may interpret Silva and Jan's message as a
clever way to get feedback from the WG, but the use of "adopting" is an
unfortunate wording. In this context, comments like "support" or
"usel
Hi Adrian.
I believe the WG agrees with the process and there is no reason not to
abide by it. The next step will be the chairs sharing a new version of
the text with the WG for feedback, which will happen soon.
Thanks,
Julien
On 04/02/2013 14:01, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi working group,
I
Dear authors of the aforementioned I-D,
Are you aware of any other IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req? If so, has all this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
more details)
Note that an IPR was disclosed on this I-D last
Transport Network Development Dept.
+81-(0)80-5945-9138 | www.kddi.com
-Original Message-----
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:13 PM
To: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-
Hi all.
This message ignites a two-week period to collect feedback on
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-04. Please send your
comments on the document to the PCE mailing list by Tuesday June 4, noon
UTC.
Regards,
JP & Julien
___
Pce
Dear authors of the aforementioned document,
Has all IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
more details)
Note that an associated IPR was disclosed in last February.
A res
Dear WG,
Following the IESG's approval of our new charter text, we have updated
our milestones. Note that the list should not be read as an exact list
of documents, but rather as a guidelines describing our areas of work.
Long term milestones will be updated as we move forward, according to
t
The MPLS/SDN 2013 Conference (the 16th annual event) program is now
posted and is available at www.mpls2013.com, or specifically
Tutorials (Sun): http://www.isocore.com/mpls2013/program/tutorials.htm
Technical sessions (Mon-Wed):
http://www.isocore.com/mpls2013/program/technical_sessions.htm
Dear authors of the aforementioned document,
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints? If so, has all this IPR been
disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
and 5378 for more details)
A response from each of you is expected.
R
Hi all.
IETF 88 is coming fast. The PCE meeting has been scheduled on Wednesday
at 1 PM. If you intend to make an efficient use of a face to face
discussion slot, please send a request to the chairs and secretary,
including the corresponding ID(s), the expected duration and a
presenter's name
-end,
JP & Julien
On 10/14/2013 16:37, Julien Meuric wrote:
Hi all.
IETF 88 is coming fast. The PCE meeting has been scheduled on
Wednesday at 1 PM. If you intend to make an efficient use of a face to
face discussion slot, please send a request to the chairs and
secretary, including
Hi.
We'd like to have the slides on line on Monday. Presenters, if you
haven't yet, please provide your slides to the chairs and secretary by
Sunday 2nd.
Regards,
JP & Julien
Le 25/10/2013 18:13, Julien Meuric a écrit :
Hi.
You may have noticed that the draft (but tight)
Hi all.
Following the opposition expressed on merging MPLS and GMPLS documents
for stateful PCE, the sense of the room was in favor of adopting the
aforementionned I-D.
Now we would like to get the feedback of the mailing list: do you
support draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03 to become a f
Hi again.
Following the support expressed in the room during our meeting in
Vancouver, we would like to get the feedback of the mailing list: do you
support draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-03 to become a
foundation for a PCE WG document?
As usual, reasons for your preference are welc
Hi.
The support looks clear. Authors, you may publish the document as
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00.
Thanks,
JP & Julien
Nov. 12, 2013 - Julien Meuric:
Hi all.
Following the opposition expressed on merging MPLS and GMPLS documents
for stateful PCE, the sense of the room wa
Hi again.
The support looks clear. Authors, you may publish the document as
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.
Thanks,
JP & Julien
Nov. 12, 2013 - Julien Meuric:
Hi again.
Following the support expressed in the room during our meeting in
Vancouver, we would like to get
Hi all.
The _preliminary_ agenda for IETF 89 is on line. PCE WG meeting is
currently scheduled on Tuesday, March 4, at 9 AM.
If you believe you could use a presentation slot during that meeting,
please contact the chairs and secretary, including:
- the topic or the I-D title,
- the requested
Hi all.
Since many of you are going to dedicate some time to IETF matters over
the upcoming days, here comes some homework.
This message ignites a 2-week WG last call on
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10. It will end on Monday,
February 17, 11:59 PM (UTC-12).
Thanks,
JP & Julien
Hi all.
Please be aware that the deadline for posting your drafts before IETF 89
is next *Friday*, not a Monday as usual. (Thanks Adrian for the warning.)
JP & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Hi again!
Before a controversy attract the RFC Editor into the thread, allow me to
rephrase:
- cut-off is *not* a Monday but a Friday (14th),
- reference information is on
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates-2014.html#IETF89
Julien
Feb. 10, 2014 - Julien Meuric:
Hi all.
Please
Hi all.
This last call has ended. We have not seen many reviews. The chairs'
will come soon.
JP & Julien
Feb. 03, 2014 - Julien Meuric:
Hi all.
Since many of you are going to dedicate some time to IETF matters over
the upcoming days, here comes some homework.
This message ig
Dear authors of the aforementioned document,
Has all IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength been
disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
and 5378 for more details)
Note that an associated IPR was disclosed in September 2010.
A response from
Hi all.
Please note that the PCE WG is meeting on Tuesday morning, i.e. rather
early in the week. We have a tight agenda. Presenters, if you do not
want to loose the slot(s) you may have
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/agenda/pce), please send your
slides to the chairs _and_ secretar
Hi all.
FYI. This has been discussed within PCE, it is even better to have an
IETF-wide orientation. We will consider this after publishing the MIBs
already in the oven.
Julien
Message original
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 10:01:43 -0800
From: The IESG
The IESG is aware
Dear WG,
As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopting
draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item.
Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting it
as a WG document?
Thanks.
JP and Julien.
___
Hi all.
This message ignites a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-07.
It will end on Monday, March 31, 11:59 PM (UTC-12).
Thanks,
JP & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Hi.
This WG LC has ended. A great step for one of our oldest I-Ds.
JP & Julien
Mar. 17, 2014 - Julien Meuric:
Hi all.
This message ignites a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-07.
It will end on Monday, March 31, 11:59 PM (UTC-12).
Thanks,
JP &
Hi all.
This thread started to tackle an interesting issue. More feedback would
have been much welcome.
Let me try to rephrase.
What we agree on: the WG (whatever its name) works on PCEP.
What may be discussed: is a PCE defined as "a path computation function"
or as "a deciding end of a PCEP
Hi all.
This message ignites a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-questions-04.
It will end on Wednesday, April 23, 11:59 PM (UTC-12).
Thanks,
JP & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Hi all.
This last call has ended.
We have seen interesting discussion. If people who raised comments feel
the proposed resolutions are not satisfying, please shout. Otherwise, we
will move forward the accordingly updated document.
Thanks,
JP & Julien
Apr. 09, 2014 - Julien Meuric:
Hi all.
YANG modules are more and more often mentioned in PCE discussions. The
following session could be an interesting opportunity to begin with.
Regards,
JP & Julien
-Original Message- From: iesg [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: 13 May 2014 22:
Dear authors of the aforementioned document,
The usual check to move forward properly: has all IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-pce-questions been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)
A response from each of you is expected.
Regards
1 - 100 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
