Re: [Pce] Poll on draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02

Support.

A very straightforward draft, just one suggestion:

Should the last paragraph of Section 2 be written in RFC2119 language? I notice the first sentence in this section uses MUST for providing background information. Other than that, no RFC2119 language is used. 

Regards,
Xian

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meuric@orange.com
Sent: 2015年1月12日 19:44
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll on draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02

Dear PCE WG,

Following our previous discussions on IRO within PCEP, do you agree with 
the adoption of draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02 as a PCE WG I-D? Please 
share your comments using the mailing list, justifying as much as 
possible in case you are opposed.

Thanks,

JP & Julien

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

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