Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational

Hi Dhruv, Julien:

The main motivation of this document is to have a single (in particular, a
brief)  document that sheds light on the inter-op issues encountered at
various multivendor public/private inter-op events. Even though PCEP is a
simple and a proven protocol, it is perceived to be complex due to large
number of RFCs/drafts. A single document of this sort would make developers
life easier. I am inclined towards option A.

Thanks,
Siva

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:37 AM <julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:

> Dear PCE WG,
>
> Let's follow up on the discussion started during IETF 114 about
> draft-koldychev-pce-operational [1]. The I-D currently tackles different
> issues about PCEP, some of them being informational, some other updating
> existing PCEP specifications. Among the options we discussed to proceed
> with this work, 2 remain:
> 1. Keep a single draft, but clearly separate the two types of content;
> 2. Break it up into 2 drafts.
>
> We'd like to hear the WG's opinion whether you prefer:
> a- a single standard track I-D, with both content types sharing fate
> until publication?
> b- a clarification I-D on informational track + an I-D updating PCEP on
> standard track (possibly progressing at different paces)?
>
> Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dhruv & Julien
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-operational/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>