Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.

julien.meuric@orange.com Thu, 18 March 2021 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
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 193ED3A2862 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
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 w9HYDF_PxKfd for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A47CC3A285F for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4F1Pbh52Prz5w1l; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:16:16 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1616066176; bh=qgW865KcxU+zOGVrFuW+W/lNmnndDcxrfGg4JC3GEg0=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=eSjyyui2gM5s6aM6HHJ3klPytEX98nnhrvK/+2Lkwzjm7Ja9pPcD1hsyro7mabRkc G/QGWAEoedaeDp45bAOWQmNQ62/qX++qowtKwJQzv2Xz2QtXY+9PnaaEm11Q++oTBr bkd72JYY/gVaFxroxQH6LkQYW3hK7vZQ3F/7XQILSN0aau24Ur8V73qzktr37DE/Xb 5239JUtT6PPm83kYMLB97pAJDLPA13i+EDv8SXVrlCBPcKUyCutn+NFNXepANBiYfB CQSS7vBU3C5ryhBc3DNgl8gv7nhbSP2Scw8Q42u6yG8X0Veeq9XVrOFF8MDnwQEtIJ YqnzBJJ4ZJFdA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.29]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4F1Pbh43PHzFpWj; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:16:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.192.150.121] (10.114.13.247) by exchange-eme6.itn.ftgroup (10.114.13.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:16:16 +0100
To: "Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
CC: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR08MB3978834687ACFA7C599AF90C91A10@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAP7zK5YUG2HhDqwCXbhAzO27P18GEL6Rdr6nkYBvW9yzCHLHjQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB3978524B94C0FB4D21B6A1CF918E9@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAP7zK5buVgy=HhT-+ZnhYZcE1AYRmOxK9-Md=4FJxqu7BLK3Zg@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB39780572111C11CDF6EFC7D4918B9@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAP7zK5YjxiMTnUT7zVHYDeYqxvQR8ESQf7ydngPYObVPHLU8uA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB397847235D7ADDF7C4B7D028919B9@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn7sR7wRTxamEzDJ2baaCq+iNmd1pNA+u+BGit4o4gBo6Q@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB39783882B8AA6A607416AA4E91999@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn4rAdTk3VQg5OVJB-NxXuPRv3NJ_M8rKC-Gw8WHpmvDog@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB39782584E9BBB2A30879DAF091989@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAB75xn67U9iMraEFh=8t2bc+0rGQ703sQgDtvOVck3=3pf2bqw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB39789457277EEBE3BE6E950B91919@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <18062086-5dc2-5fee-b5d8-704d37e47a2e@orange.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:16:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR08MB39789457277EEBE3BE6E950B91919@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms020509080902030308040307"
X-Originating-IP: [10.114.13.247]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TZSVLPFGl904CFhGyTVSRq7cxqE>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.
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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:16:20 -0000

Hi Hooman,

To respond to your comment, we usually follow the list below:
1- Gauge interest on the mailing list about an I-D,
2- Gauge interest when the I-D is presented to the WG,
3- If enough of 1 and 2, do a 1st poll in the room during WG meetings,
4- If enough of 3, add the I-D to the adoption queue.

Without face-to-face meeting, we sometimes skip 3. Considering its
depth, we often revise the order in the adoption queue with respect to
consensus and document maturity (consider thanking Dhruv for that). As a
result, your effort should focus on progressing technical discussions
rather than process requests: I believe the discussion in progress will
end up in improving your I-D, which will be valuable whatever the
further steps.
Contrary to what I've read, please note PCE-CC isn't a prerequisite and
there's no such statement like "the working group is only dictating
PCECC and is not open to any other option but PCECC for the purpose of
programming the PCC and multicast".

Thanks,

Julien


On 10/03/2021 04:39, Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote:
> HB> Dear chairs I am not sure if I understand the criteria of how
> drafts move from “Individual documents that authors consider ready for
> WG adoption” to “WG Adoptoin call queue”. I am guessing it is chairs
> consent that moves the draft between the 2 queues, not the adaptation
> request?