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

Khasanov Boris <> Tue, 08 October 2019 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1206C120103 for <>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tb8rpD8u3OT9 for <>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC98A1200F8 for <>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 5559A55A1944451474C5; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:43:58 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:43:56 +0100
From: Khasanov Boris <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment?
Thread-Index: AQHVc71ib1HzsciKCUSP0zlMgPC2aqdQbknA
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 07:43:55 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 07:44:03 -0000

Hi all,

I read this draft and support its adoption by WG because support of Path Segment in PCE and ways of its allocation are important.
Also agree with earlier Rakesh comments in the list about extending normative and informative reference sections by including those 2 drafts (draft-ietf-sping-mpls-path-segment, draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment) into the next version.


-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:21 PM
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment?


In our adoption poll queue, draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment has been there for a little while, after it was discussed face to face. We would now like you to voice your opinion on the list: do you think this I-D can be the foundation for a PCE WG's work item?

Please send your feedback to the PCE mailing list, including any comment you would like to share, especially if you think the WG should not adopt it. This poll will end on October 9.


Dhruv & 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