[Pce] Implementing the new Implementation Policy
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 31 May 2019 16:15 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3321120261 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJKm1FkOrlYD for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A170120270 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VGFZkJ031864 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:35 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1F622087 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 931B322079 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.112.172.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VGFXhe005475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:34 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: pce@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:32 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <05b001d517cc$13110f30$39332d90$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdUXy40b842jQiLbSDy0/KnwUF35Hw==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 87.112.172.175
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24650.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.824-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.824-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24650.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.823800-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pjj54ow6YrbKGz6CdByMAvIq3+8DQd0opXln60SlGBvwJYZa/L83HRyH 7XXx/r8zaucT5XJRZzuMQMGLMzlJBZkroZMnoDefXK5keCa+bmg0AJe3B5qfBmNDqjXOO0Ye7XZ 5wYvlg+69SRpUa5kjk/eOIV74a7zvN6IarY2VLsWVUcz8XpiS9JH/lBD8KLjrr5aAJxq+KoYASQ zteVqh+HNfLtlpYpNCgzzl8VX4lWOwS+uqBJAE91kxnoxnQfVSEAImHgFYA97Dra5IbmQvVtbna unBsYgAwONBl6IkJItp0oDM6nL2luUrLWfRjDAyngIgpj8eDcC063Wh9WVqgoou5V2iHBf1sOzO ncrmCoP3FLeZXNZS4DjAdLIal4R68SDtCooUnwUgu5NFHZB5LAtn1/HhBIDdyamAn2hvQkE/1fq V2xzWkg==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/9wKckUzaLn53z9WitBJ29m-EsJY>
Subject: [Pce] Implementing the new Implementation Policy
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:15:53 -0000
All, Obviously we have cut some slack for the documents that are further advanced. But a number of you have asked that your drafts be considered for WG last call, and a few are in the queue (see the lists on the wiki at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/). If you are hoping that your document will advance soon and if it doesn't address the implementation policy, your expectations may be sadly disappointed. New revisions of your drafts may be needed. Thanks, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 09 May 2019 10:42 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Proposed Implementation Policy for PCE WG Hi WG, The poll is closed. We have an implementation policy set for the PCE WG - "All WG I-Ds are required to include an 'Implementation Status' Section (as per RFC7942) to document known existing or planned implementations. The chairs can make exceptions on a per-document basis." It is expected that all WG I-Ds requesting WG LC from now on (May 2019), must follow the above implementation policy. Reach out to the chairs in case an exception needs to be made for your document. Refer the wiki - https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/ for the policy as well as WG queues/status. Thanks! Dhruv, Julien & Adrian
- [Pce] Implementing the new Implementation Policy Adrian Farrel