IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Thu, 18 February 2021 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
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 CA9E33A0B41 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 22:22:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.625
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 QcA9gKY9VafT for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 22:22:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 442C23A0B3A for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 22:22:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 0DCECCBCDEB5039AB4A2; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:22:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 11I6MD6A037599; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:22:13 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:22:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:22:12 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa602e0794b63afedd
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202102181422129743644@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: dd@dhruvdhody.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 11I6MD6A037599
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/-t2tFNji8XnOTosqvRWMBq7fuKk>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 06:22:32 -0000

Support.



This paper is just at the right time. More and more applications will depend on it in the future.






Regards,


PSF









//[Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
//Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Mon, 01 February 2021 17:48 UTCShow header


//Hi WG,

//This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03This //is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
//defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
//sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-fieldShould //this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
//- Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are
//you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to
//the list.

//Please respond by Monday 15th Feb.

//Thanks!
//Dhruv & Julien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email