Hi, Dhruv:
I support the forward this draft in fast track. Some comments are bellows for
your reference:
1) Should the two paragraphs within the “Abstract” be connected via some
conjunction, for example, “On the other hand” etc. to make the conversion more
smooth?
2) Should the table 2 in section 3, add one line to describe the Error-Type
0-251, and their corresponding Error-Value?, to cover all the possibility?
The final format of table 2 should be looked like the followings:
+============+==================+==================+============+
| Error-Type | Meaning |
Error-value | Reference |
+============+==================+==================+============+
| 0-251 | IETF Review |
0-255 | RFC5440 |
| 252-255 | Experimental Use |
0-255 | [this.I-D] |
| | |
Experimental Use | |
+----------------+------------------------+------------------------+----------------+
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表
Dhruv Dhody
发送时间: 2024年8月22日 11:42
收件人: [email protected]
抄送: [email protected];
[email protected]
主题: [Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update
Hi WG,
Please find a proposed update that merges draft-farrel-pce-experimental-errors
-
https://ietf-wg-pce.github.io/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update.html
Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-pce-iana-update
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-pce-iana-update&url_2=https://ietf-wg-pce.github.io/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update.txt>
&url_2=https://ietf-wg-pce.github.io/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update.txt
Please let us know if you have an objection to this update. Authors will post
the revision in the datatracker next week and will request Julien to move this
I-D quickly.
Feel free to also provide your comments and edits.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Adrian
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 2:59 PM <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Hi all,
We have clear support and no objection on adopting this small I-D: it is
now a PCE WG item.
@Authors: please re-submit the draft as draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-00.
@Authors of draft-farrel-pce-experimental-errors: please talk to the
authors of the aforementioned I-D to consider adding your proposal as a
contribution into this new WG effort.
Thank you,
Julien
Le 30/07/2024 à 10:36, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> In his review of the "native IP" draft, John suggested to consider
> adjusting to "IETF Review" the allocation policy of some of the PCEP
> registries currently using "Standards Action". Dhruv has submitted
> draft-dhody-pce-iana-update to quickly resolve this concern and bring
> higher consistency among PCEP registries.
>
> As a result, does the WG support the adoption of
> draft-dhody-pce-iana-update [1] as a WG item? Please, share your
> feedback using the PCE mailing list and include your rationale in case
> you're opposed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Julien
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iana-update/
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
