Re: [Pce] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with COMMENT)

["Andrew Stone (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,



Just +1 and acknowledging with the same from Dhruv. The shepherd writeup question was if there are any implementation reported somewhere (“or elsewhere”) thus figured thorough to reference the mailing list response.



Thanks!

Andrew


From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:12 AM
To: Murray Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray,

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:30 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: 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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Further to Eric's comment, I'm completely confused by question #4 of the
shepherd writeup.  While the document claims there are no implementations
known, the shepherd writeup says there's at least one (and it was easy), and
makes another "Yes" remark that I don't understand.


Dhruv: The shepherd writeup mentions this email response on the mailing list - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/dLdcUan2psssBUgzCtXPluEr_ok/ that mentions some implementation experience. When we asked to include that information in the implementation section we did not get a confirmation back. Soo that's that :)

We could update the implementation section to say -

OLD:
   At the time of posting the -02 version of this document, there are no
   known implementations of this mechanism.
NEW:
   At the time of posting the -04 version of this document, there are no
   known implementations of this mechanism. It is believed that one
   vendor has implementation, but these plans are too vague to make
   any further assertions.
END

Thanks!
Dhruv