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

Aijun Wang <> Thu, 21 January 2021 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8248A3A0E5C; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:33:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jvoCydYf2Dwj; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAF23A0E5A; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clientip- (unknown []) by (HERMES) with SMTP id F3DE9280126; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:31:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by App0024 with ESMTP id e894fbb056154e71acfe07a23fdd1180 for; Thu Jan 21 14:32:52 2021
X-Transaction-ID: e894fbb056154e71acfe07a23fdd1180
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
From: "Aijun Wang" <>
To: "'Martin Duke'" <>, "'The IESG'" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, "'Lou Berger'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:31:56 +0800
Message-ID: <002501d6efbf$3eaa79c0$bbff6d40$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLtXchHzglxKVlcnuCJFoiaOefr5agEv26g
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:33:03 -0000

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: <> 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 6:49 AM
To: The IESG <>
Cc:;;; Lou Berger <>et>;
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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


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?