IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Mon, 01 February 2021 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
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 CECED3A1113 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:48:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dhruvdhody-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 RMmJ-WVX09w3 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C5DB3A0C5F for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id e12so1218630pls.4 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 09:48:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dhruvdhody-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rFXAIvG4fhmtCCc7RT17L0iQG9wy5JbyB77046Zinnw=; b=IrHKnTsBBqqP2h6rI8ObLnQLcAfpTLbTJtjIfmdMauWZ0LbO4Da4rsGkHjJp9l0BL2 cj5+NG81BqJpUEV0TlVnecrOJ/HKHqCZETpav9SYosdWMgj5P04sFKTp2pi1YZGUIPzF dM9MWVXalRwA46wmeaKjcJGNkCiureSSCWHM2fFkk6Sr0foFcVCriuRvBdrycCSiZUNd w0U9jNdnfYkNfnLvy3HJMGUQf9SrZ0xzu4ZNmz7gEZ3tCJ1vwFdMesLPHnBqyc//yOlu pqzFH8Wv1HwWQxBLIrn9CsPl3Hm6IjomotzZWusCEmOHTwykNH8xmJ24zuhzL4wvsg89 PlLw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rFXAIvG4fhmtCCc7RT17L0iQG9wy5JbyB77046Zinnw=; b=MIrNVbCA/UJ+QIMyPRucLkTStBaWulXPJ+SyEE1eQFo/f1ZkC6iuODazJwlS87fnff cCP2Qed5OdO6hMkDFC5XPKxYEdB3ikIheRkn3EWGAns0+CUG71zo8FDXAmebrJXC7554 yQ0AA3Hypek9LyFx3E8m84fb1sBpy79W8cGLQH2zJr7CUlibS0mv/uFeOot0ZttfzHmU YrlkWuVZ5CZjmhc85SuIyvrZLms9jqD6qcBWHLrxEHTgbXdjQybtpYsyxmpSTIsQtqqq 8lEYpYnYzSenxXB229ZyVPfhluV9tKojbRmkuFWCAwecWktxEkUGI1P6jUZbmWGW4ERk F6RA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/HbT3THXXEffGKRgT8eEkqEeHyBnV+YB3sBkza+RC6iNM6Asp l6ykw0q6V0CNc0EHpLE5umOv1YiNIWEC/UU1FtMpbVd4mCxcrzqT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXrnYzWAUBRNDCKYtGeymXrzrzrb2QwHDI7IhlUw0j2Gg2mFGhy6WgI6eqNwXksDURwYh9jTnhcmaA1Lwh3YQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a40b:b029:e0:1096:7fb with SMTP id p11-20020a170902a40bb02900e0109607fbmr18460163plq.40.1612201692667; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 09:48:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 23:17:36 +0530
Message-ID: <CAP7zK5YxLUw_TvG-EBQXSfMcYUaeck+FZ=8o9+fbxJW=v59teA@mail.gmail.com>
To: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WG_cUFyum_PV_EoZwLNzqg-KEbo>
Subject: [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: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:48:15 -0000

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-03

This 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-field

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 15th Feb.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email