IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06?

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Sun, 26 January 2020 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14B5120019 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 01:40:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Emmamvpw7pjZ for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 01:40:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56173120018 for <pce@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 01:40:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EDC92CDA4F58B1F3F7AF for <pce@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:40:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:40:33 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.77]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 17:40:31 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: "julien.meuric" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, pce <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06?
Thread-Index: AQHVzR6504bzvVh8Uka038puQPlXoKf5R8oAgAN3QzE=
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:40:30 +0000
Message-ID: 990ACCB5-CA37-4BEC-A3C0-7E8174FE77BA
References: <e69cdba1-69c2-583c-3eaf-f14265a45d74@orange.com>, <0D63E9AC-20AF-4048-B9B6-67E4D3D6C808@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D63E9AC-20AF-4048-B9B6-67E4D3D6C808@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_990ACCB5CA374BECA3C07E8174FE77BA_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/-KEOOl6gLw7pu9yEEiOxVE8B6x4>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06?
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:40:37 -0000

Hi WG,

I support the adoption of this document.

Best regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)

--------------------------------------------------
李振斌 Li Zhenbin
Mobile: +86-13651017745/+968-91797068
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>

发件人：Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com>
收件人：julien.meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>;pce <pce@ietf.org>
时 间：2020-01-24 20:45:25
主 题：Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06?

Support!

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: Orange
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 5:13 AM
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06?

Hi all,

It is time to share your thoughts about draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06.
Do you believe the I-D is a right foundation for a PCE WG item? Please
use the PCE mailing list to express your comments, support or
disagreement, including applicable rationale, especially for the latter.

Thanks,

Dhruv & Julien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email