Re: Feedback request for draft-schmutzer-pals-ple

Christian,

Thanks for the note and aiming the draft at PALS. I've also added your
co-authors to this reply, in case any of them aren't (yet) subscribed to
the PALS list.

To start the discussion, when I looked through the draft I didn't see any
references to RFC 4842, which is more than a bit of an omission. The draft
very much needs a general applicability discussion comparing this draft to
existing PALS and PWE3 RFCs in your solution space and when this draft
should be used rather than existing mechanisms.

Thanks,
Andy


On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:50 AM Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <cschmutz=
[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear PALS community,
>
> The authors of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-bess-ple have added
> a new section (5.3) to cover the data plane aspects for 200GE and 400GE.
>
> Based on the input received in the past we also now renamed this
> individual draft to be directed towards the PALS WG.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple
>
> We would appreciate your review and feedback
>
> regards
> Christian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pals mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
>

_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals