IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Wed, 07 January 2015 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89421A0217 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:17:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 NRzg8uO4cata for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F87E1A0673 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BNQ84960; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 04:16:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.43) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:16:57 +0000
Received: from BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.114]) by BLREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.43]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:46:46 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Next Steps for IRO, Domain-Seq documents...
Thread-Index: AdAqML2vlVz1JndqSB+Psqd0gj6Puw==
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 04:16:45 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B870214AC@BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.146.248]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/B41-7nteBVM02I85Mds4SFT5LG0
Cc: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
Subject: [Pce] Next Steps for IRO, Domain-Seq documents...
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 04:17:05 -0000

Hi All,

Happy New Year! 

Let's start with some questions to the WG and Chairs. 

1. IRO-Survey (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey/)
	Should this informational survey be adopted and moved towards RFC?
		Or just dropped...

2. IRO-Update (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-update/)
	WG Adoption Call?
		A simple I-D, should be fast tracked? 
			Other WG documents in PCE, TEAS are dependent on it. 

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...

Please provide your suggestions on progressing these documents... 

Regards,
Dhruv (on behalf of co-authors)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email