Re: [6tsch] work item 2: centralized route and track computation with PCE

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Makes sense Michael.

We also had an agreement to consider CoAP.  We had this text in the previous iteration our the draft charter:

"The WG will initially look at PCEP and CoAP. Depending on the applicability of PCEP, 
this document will be targeted to proposed standard."

The new text lost forgets the references to PCEP and CoAP.

"The requirements and architecture documents would aim at Informational status and as a result
standard track work may be triggered within this group or other groups such as the PCE WG."

What about
"The requirements and architecture documents would aim at Informational status.
The WG will initially look at PCEP and CoAP for applicability and standard track work 
may be triggered within this group or other groups such as the PCE WG."

Cheers,

Pascal


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: mardi 23 juillet 2013 20:13
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: [e-mail]; Thomas Watteyne
Subject: Re: [6tsch] work item 2: centralized route and track computation with PCE


Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]> wrote:

    > That was the original idea. But there is so much more to do than
    > incremental PCEP that we fell back to requirements and architecture.

What's important is that the charter explain that PCEP is in context, and that extensions to it are.  If there are more things that need to be done that do not overlap any other WG, then the need to do them will become obvious from the requirements.

    > Also the PCEP changes may better be done within PCE WG if we have a
    > clean req + archi to explain what we need.

Don't preclude the decision by the IESG.

There is no doubt that the PCE WG will be asked to review, but if they are about to be closed, or are busy doing other things, or have little common people with IoT, then it makes no sense.  The IESG might find an PCE expert to review, or even to co-chair.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>ca>, Sandelman Software Works