[Pce] 答复: WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06

Hi, Dhruv:

I support the adoption of this draft.

One comment for the current document, would like to see the author give some
explanations or add some clarifications for them:

Will it be more accurate to change draft name to include some key words as
"Policy Association"? 
  For none association type of SR-MPLS Policy via PCEP, is RFC8664
sufficient? 
  For none association type of SRv6 via PCEP, there is also another WG draft
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-04
  As mentioned in the document, although the color/endpoint is not included
in the above documents, but these enhancements is not the main part of this
draft?

Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Dhruv
> Dhody
> 发送时间: 2020年6月7日 15:45
> 收件人: pce@ietf.org
> 主题: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
> 
> Hi WG,
> 
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
> 
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/0
6/
> 
> 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.
> 
> This adoption poll will end on 22nd June 2020.
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce