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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:30 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
[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