IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Fri, 17 April 2026 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: pce@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F82DE215A1; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 02:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1776416437; bh=YbaNv4pAEl98ELA5VBCL8L0rq5QKqyRhH6xgrLQnhN8=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; b=NaVu0t4A1Jhqnnb4j2K4Px4o4kHoZ6V9E0pVNURydkHOdCe4gN3EgdFmzs9dNIgKG AV8YXmo33idLgl/5lbgSAQxU9hMUREYIPfpO6rSlrH2j2KBzwuVTtE/lHgiz0lNgIa 3OByIbd/QUoDqfEl8ZpoYvxIQGz3nMFXC+M8oe3c=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xu_W5D9CsP_I; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 02:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [160.30.148.34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3DCDE2159A; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 02:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4fxpkV2dpPz4yjjL; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:00:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app02.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.116]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 63H90Kpt027381; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:00:20 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:00:22 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa69e1f6a6f3c-3a6ce
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20260417170022837EPOdRa88vIU3rBX-pzSNd@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7zK5ZkPW3BeboBRT9jA+7Zc7-F5WpZTjZJTkJTPvBjSPej6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAP7zK5ZkPW3BeboBRT9jA+7Zc7-F5WpZTjZJTkJTPvBjSPej6A@mail.gmail.com
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:00:22 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: dd@dhruvdhody.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 63H90Kpt027381
X-TLS: YES
X-SPF-DOMAIN: zte.com.cn
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
X-SPF: None
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.133 unknown Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:00:34 +0800
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 69E1F6B2.001/4fxpkV2dpPz4yjjL
Message-ID-Hash: WECGU5PSQPNMTIW6OKPVBRWZJLFUCJ67
X-Message-ID-Hash: WECGU5PSQPNMTIW6OKPVBRWZJLFUCJ67
X-MailFrom: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pce.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/9eeIIAJMa_p0qkEgg7DL3TG7vxc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pce-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pce-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pce-leave@ietf.org>

Hi WG,

I read this document and support the adoption.


The Topology object is a useful PCEP extension to take the topology related constraints into consideration during the path computation.
I just suggest to separate the Informative References from the Normative References. Thanks.

BR，
Ran

Original


From: DhruvDhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
To: pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>;
Cc: pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>;draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter@ietf.org <draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter@ietf.org>;
Date: 2026年04月10日 19:52
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-leave@ietf.org


Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter/

Should 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 27th Apr 2026.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status