IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn> Thu, 23 January 2020 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.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 51C92120125 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:53:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 I_Y7slvtR5cg for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0B7120124 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:53:43 -0800 (PST)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.92:43648.474656606
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-121.32.193.71?logid-63D489C9DCC6484181E6BEDA1BE125E7 (unknown [172.18.0.92]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 7B9F7280090; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:53:39 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 44093218@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.92]) by App0021 with ESMTP id 63D489C9DCC6484181E6BEDA1BE125E7 for julien.meuric@orange.com; Thu Jan 23 11:53:40 2020
X-Transaction-ID: 63D489C9DCC6484181E6BEDA1BE125E7
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.92
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:53:40 +0800
From: "chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn>
To: "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
References: <e69cdba1-69c2-583c-3eaf-f14265a45d74@orange.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.14.410[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2020012311514351840896@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart456243272141_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Qo6hZNcBcX3j4Mv076COEWmbpTw>
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:53:46 -0000

Hi WG,

   Support the adption.
   I have read the draft, it is ready to be a WG document.
   The extensions to PCEP were clear and the procedures to setup bidirectional SR-LSP were given too.
   One comment: If we need SR-LSP redundancy, how should we do at the bidirectional SR-LSP scenario?

Best Regards,
Huanan

From: julien.meuric@orange.com
Date: 2020-01-17 18:12
To: 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
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email