Re: [Pce] Martin Duke's No Objection on charter-ietf-pce-07-03: (with COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:25 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-pce-07-03: 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.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This group appears to have a fair amount of overlap with the soon-to-close
> ALTO, but that certainly does not prevent rechartering.


Dhruv: I would categorize that PCE and ALTO "complement" each other rather
than "overlap".



> Arguably, CATS is also
> related, but that's not my WG so I'm sure the relevant ADs will work that
> out.
>
>
Dhruv: There is a possibility in future for it but as of now there is no
work proposed nor it is listed in the CATS charter.



> Is TED synchronization in or out of scope?
>
>
>
Dhruv: Yes if PCEP is being used for such synchronization. One could say
its implicit in stateful PCE, but may be we can make it explicit -

Definition of the PCEP extensions used by a stateful PCE for
> recommending a new path for an existing or new LSP to the PCC/PCE.
> Further protocol extensions must cover the case where the receiving
> PCC/PCE chooses not to follow the recommendation. The PCEP
> extensions for state synchronization are also in scope.


Thanks!
Dhruv