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

Hi Chair and WG,

 I support the adopting of this work. This document seems a reasonable solution for SRv6 computing and allocation with PCE based control.

-------------------------------------
王敏学/ Wang Minxue
中国移动通信研究院 基础网络技术研究所 / China Mobile Research Institute
地址: 北京市西城区宣武门西大街32号创新大厦,100053
电话: 010-15801696688-33202
传真：010-63601087
Email: wangminxue@chinamobile.com
-------------------------------------

From: julien.meuric@orange.com
Date: 2023-01-17 00:57
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational
Dear PCE WG,

This issue has been opened for while. Thank you to those who took time 
to share their views.

We acknowledge that having a single document may be likely to reduce the 
initial paperwork (at least until the I-D starts to be reviewed by 
people outside the PCE WG). However, as stated by Adrian, the line 
between updates and clarifications "must not be blurry", all the more as 
the standard track piece of work may update some RFCs. This must be true 
both for us, as a WG, and for future reader of the documents, especially 
if they are not familiar with IETF way of working when it comes to 
multi-status document content.

As a result, let's follow John's guidelines, voiced during the London 
meeting, and split the I-D into 2 documents with focused status. 
Starting from there, we'll be able to move forward.

Thank you,

Dhruv & Julien

On 29/09/2022 10:37, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce