[Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-pce-07-04: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 14 December 2023 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBCFC14F605; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 02:19:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.0.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <170254914448.34300.5277203253123621909@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 02:19:04 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LhOubQKBXjqkFvhzTOrltm67g0A>
Subject: [Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-pce-07-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:19:04 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-pce-07-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


After re-reading the proposed charter for the n+1 time, some more comments:

1) the first paragraph would benefit by directly stating that it is about MPLS,
SR, BIER, Detnet... rather than adding a 2nd sentence "Further, the PCE WG ...."

2) in the same vein, the 2nd paragraph is only about (G)MPLS with terms like
LSR and LSP.

3) in the last two bullets: what is the difference between "in cooperation" and
"in *close* cooperation" ?

4) as written in my previous review, it would be clearer if the work items are
directly qualified with 'standard tracks' or if 'specification' was used rather
than 'definition'