[Pce] 答复: Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Dhruv:

 

I support the forward this draft in fast track. Some comments are bellows for your reference:

 

1)     Should the two paragraphs within the “Abstract” be connected via some conjunction, for example, “On the other hand” etc. to make the conversion more smooth?

2)     Should the table 2 in section 3, add one line to describe the Error-Type 0-251, and their corresponding Error-Value?, to cover all the possibility?

The final format of table 2 should be looked like the followings:

 

+============+==================+==================+============+       

|        Error-Type     |                 Meaning               |            Error-value               |           Reference    |    

+============+==================+==================+============+       

| 0-251                     |                  IETF Review         |                  0-255                  |        RFC5440        |     

| 252-255                |           Experimental Use       |                  0-255                  |          [this.I-D]       |    

|                              |                                             |          Experimental Use        |                               |

+----------------+------------------------+------------------------+----------------+

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Dhruv Dhody
发送时间: 2024年8月22日 11:42
收件人: [e-mail]
抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: [Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update

 

Hi WG,

 

Please find a proposed update that merges draft-farrel-pce-experimental-errors - https://ietf-wg-pce.github.io/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update.html

Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-pce-iana-update <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-pce-iana-update&url_2=https://ietf-wg-pce.github.io/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update.txt> &url_2=https://ietf-wg-pce.github.io/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update.txt

 

Please let us know if you have an objection to this update. Authors will post the revision in the datatracker next week and will request Julien to move this I-D quickly. 

Feel free to also provide your comments and edits. 

 

Thanks! 

Dhruv & Adrian

 

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 2:59 PM <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

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 your proposal as a 
contribution into this new WG effort.

Thank you,

Julien


Le 30/07/2024 à 10:36, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  a écrit :
> 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 consistency among PCEP registries.
>
> As a result, does the WG support the adoption of 
> draft-dhody-pce-iana-update [1] as a WG item? Please, share your 
> feedback using the PCE mailing list and include your rationale in case 
> you're opposed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Julien
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iana-update/
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>