[Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational

julien.meuric@orange.com Thu, 29 September 2022 08:37 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 B3DBAC1524DB for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 01:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Q2K4v7y16Kr for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 01:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63DB3C1522C3 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 01:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4MdRYq3mpTz1yL8 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:37:19 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1664440639; bh=67w+nveWsT8GVhPpBxLSfs4NlTev4BafnQXEHZevwts=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=aMXLxyEKL0POzhf+3Dq4aAIYyUEJwdN5ayGMK0xyd+zDuYzI9vtdHvptjVyY+CZAs xJBnEq3DCa93hHcxBRdPyr8s1tszHsPAcq5KAq1/AfQW1CHcF4zzMPdm9GO6m7qZ5N OAb4BTeZnQwbNbmoNo4w+w1a4tqA0ukN3wtUb9EMw+G83xQl2X9QUYPkSxIr9HMGIU Hbuukw8bY0h2CmI40Ytq8tnDWPHSzkac5+aW2ntAn9xJPHGgGI9UUByK+AuJSCWjTo apSnvwCWfFbrkaRQgiIqQZRCnUW1cUMRVB7ZpG0cuVLl/ZR0GCJpOya5Tnv++DsvtO nwxRFgWalYuTw==
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
From: julien.meuric@orange.com
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <7c65cb43-7644-b241-fb3d-e26e948231d3@orange.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:37:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms040301040003020700070706"
X-Originating-IP: [10.115.26.50]
X-ClientProxiedBy: OPE16NORMBX406.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.115.27.15) To OPE16NORMBX407.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.115.27.16)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/V4RjCcWcZ4DV2TvPhcFUvHLX0Jg>
Subject: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 29 Sep 2022 08:37:25 -0000

Dear PCE WG,

Let's follow up on the discussion started during IETF 114 about 
draft-koldychev-pce-operational [1]. The I-D currently tackles different 
issues about PCEP, some of them being informational, some other updating 
existing PCEP specifications. Among the options we discussed to proceed 
with this work, 2 remain:
1. Keep a single draft, but clearly separate the two types of content;
2. Break it up into 2 drafts.

We'd like to hear the WG's opinion whether you prefer:
a- a single standard track I-D, with both content types sharing fate 
until publication?
b- a clarification I-D on informational track + an I-D updating PCEP on 
standard track (possibly progressing at different paces)?

Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list.

Thanks,

Dhruv & Julien


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-operational/