Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

A new standard must involve some change in forwarding behavior; I guess you
mean that this draft simply combines existing pathways rather than
introducing an algorithm that it is entirely new?

I might ask this to be a bit clearer, but I certainly won't insist on
holding up the document over it, if it's clear to people knowledgable in
the field.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:33 PM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Martin:
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> “No changes in a router's forwarding behavior” is one of main objective of
> the solution that described in this draft, not the whole of this document.
> The main reason is that we want to utilize the deployed/existing devices
> in large extent, thus focus mainly on the design/update of the control
> plane.
>
> Is there any concern from you for such considerations?
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 6:49 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15:
> (with COMMENT)
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am a bit confused that a design objective (sec 1) is “ No changes in a
> router's forwarding behavior”. Isn’t that what this whole draft is about?
>
>
>
>
>