Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 09 January 2022 17:48 UTC

Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org
References: <7f6f43c7-06fd-bc5c-97ce-12db83042c0f@orange.com> <5a43d086-fb61-5341-3bdf-1fa687e726f5@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <5a43d086-fb61-5341-3bdf-1fa687e726f5@orange.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2022 17:48:11 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <02e101d80581$12cf3880$386da980$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQFvJbY1GNvT4lnNqxaw3pc01qmbdgI8vMEDrRrN9nA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3m_H2QYX_PwSAIcJg0dqklqAeb8>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec
Precedence: list

Hi Julien,

I'm sorry, I missed the adoption poll (although I saw and responded to Hari's email about IPR).

This document is the right way to start documenting how to do a PCEP flowspec for L2 flow identification. Indeed, this mechanism was part of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec but got pulled out into a separate document because the definition of the L2 flowspec was dependent on draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn which is progressing slowly in IDR.

I am listed as an author on this draft because I am an author of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec and had a hand in shaping some of the text in this document. I am, however, not completely excited by the L2 aspects. If the draft is adopted (which I hope it is), I promise to review it, but I would be happy to be "downgraded" to Contributor and have someone more interested in the L2 aspects take a place on the front page.

Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of julien.meuric@orange.com
Sent: 06 January 2022 12:57
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec

Hi all and best wishes for 2022.

Gentle reminder: we started a poll some days before Christmas. If it was 
pure new work, I'd assume there isn't enough interest yet. Since it's 
pre-existing work that has been split to catch up with another WG's work 
in progress, I'd feel more comfortable to get some explicit feedback.

Thanks,

Julien

On 16/12/2021 17:49, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This message is the following step to the situation previously 
> summarized by Dhruv [1].
>
> As a result, do you believe that draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec [2] is 
> a right foundation to become (again) a PCE WG item?
>
> Please respond to the PCE list, including any comment you may feel 
> useful, especially in case of negative answer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Julien
>
> (As a reminder, Dhruv recused himself from the administrative process.)
>
> -- 
>
> [1] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4f8f_3Qs_uA3T16CTCAsoOJnt58/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec/

[Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flow… julien.meuric
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-… julien.meuric
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-… Adrian Farrel
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-… Chengli (Cheng Li)
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-… Zhuangshunwan
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-… olivier.dugeon
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-… julien.meuric