Re: [Pce] Next Steps for IRO, Domain-Seq documents...

[Ramon Casellas <[e-mail]>]

>> 1. IRO-Survey 
>> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey/)
>>
> [JM] This was preliminary and necessary work for the following I-D. 
> Not sure the overhead from authors/chairs/shepherds to reach RFC is 
> required, but if the WG thinks otherwise, we may consider it.
>
Ramon> no preference, either way. I guess a use for the survey is to 
support the IRO update document, and having it as RFC means it will not 
expire. otoh, I agree it is a significant overhead and will, eventually, 
become obsolete. If it is dropped, stating in the IRO update draft that 
a surver was conducted would be enough.

>> 2. IRO-Update 
>> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-update/)
>>     WG Adoption Call?
>>         A simple I-D, should be fast tracked?
>>
> [JM] This is the significant output of the above. We will proceed 
> accordingly.
Ramon> Replied in previous mail, I am in favor of adoption, no objection 
to fast-track (*if* the WG agrees on ordered list, and L bit, which is 
the main and only change, iirc)


>
>> 3. Domain-Sequence 
>> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/)
>>       Wenhu asked WG about the track of the document, What is the WG 
>> opinion? Does it needs to be on standards track?
>>         Ready to be moved along towards publication...
> [JM] Here, we really need to hear the WG's opinion. It is not too late 
> to change (again), but we need to see more views about this before 
> moving again.
>
Ramon> (as a co-author) I have a personal preference for standards 
track, but I would not object strongly to experimental.

Thanks
Ramon