Archive

Hard not to be sarcastic, but I'll try.

Yes, I still support this document I wrote at the request of the chairs and
with the support of the WG to fix an error in a WG RFC and which has already
completed WG last call but now has a new name and another two weeks delay
before it can go to IETF last call.

If anyone asks why the IETF takes so long to produce RFCs, we might use this
document as a good example. I know, not the chairs' fault.

Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt

Hi WG,

As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change
- draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/

The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the
publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal
to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it).

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE
Request Parameters Flags
>         Author          : Adrian Farrel
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
>         Pages           : 6
>         Date            : 2019-11-07
>
> Abstract:
>    Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
>    (PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are
>    defined in RFC 8231.  One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE
>    Request Parameters (SRP) object.  That object includes a Flags field
>    that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry
>    for tracking assigned flags.  However, RFC 8231 does not explain how
>    an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted
>    messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned,
>    unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages.
>
>    This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce