IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call - draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 19 November 2015 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D401B1B30B7 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 01:37:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.786
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 t5mamjPNZw7o for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 01:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCAF21B30AE for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 01:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CEI13907; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:37:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:37:10 +0000
Received: from BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.125]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:07:00 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call - draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04
Thread-Index: AQHRAhy/vjVtoYVB9EuMfjvTSIqVgZ6HQAeAgACIpICAAXqlAIAAtsUAgAJWSpWABt8agIAIgjlggAaQAYCAALZhgIAAXe9Q
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:37:00 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C476E8F@BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C435C02@BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com> <00bb01d1172a$1fcc4100$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <B46D90DD-D634-4832-90F5-1A9DC1E45760@telefonica.com> <01ea01d11eda$b1243920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4B3520A0-F710-4AE6-80F5-D2551600637E@telefonica.com> <564D9593.6090204@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <564D9593.6090204@orange.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.244.252]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.564D9848.003D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.7.125, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f251b0796d1aa2cd9771df7031d8ec72
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/xrKvkmHg0Fi6tSIDKvfllL4sFvw>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call - draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Nov 2015 09:37:21 -0000

Hi Julien, 

We have the update ready to go. 

Quoting from Tom's mail - 

> So I value the early intervention of the 
> Security Directorate to try and fix such 
> issues sooner, and so cheaper, rather than later.

We were wondering if it would be worthwhile (and allowed by the process) to request for an early Sec-Dir review while the control is still with the WG? 

Regards,
Dhruv


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> Sent: 19 November 2015 14:56
> To: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA
> Cc: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call - draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04
> 
> Hola Diego,
> 
> The WG LC was started for a 2-week period: you can consider it finished.
> 
> Finished or not, you are expected to resolve all the received comments and
> publish an update accordingly, so as to have the I-D ready to be sent to the
> IESG. Feel free to proceed as soon as you are able to.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> Nov. 18, 2015 - diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com:
> >
> > And let me insist that I'd directly ask the UTA WG about this. My only
> > question is about procedure: shall we wait till we finish the last
> > call period? Shall we perform it as part of the last call process?
> > What do our chairs think?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email