Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-peru-teas-actn-poi-applicability

Hi Authors, WG,

Yes/support for WG adoption!

I see value in these applicability documents. The
draft-li-teas-hierarchy-ip-controllers does a similar job but for just
IP controllers.

Will the authors consider adding a section on PCE/PCEP? There is a
rich history of using PCE/PCEP for inter-layer path computation and
RFC 8637 briefly covers it. If needed I can help contribute text.

I agree with the editor's note in section 5 and work is needed to get
better integration. I also wonder what needs to be kept in the scope
of this I-D (as a lot of text is useful but independent of POI). I am
wondering if it should be moved to TE service mapping draft as I also
see a lot of text repeated from there.

Figure 2 needs to reconcile with draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang that does
not differentiate between the ACTN and non-ACTN interfaces and list
them together. Would be good to figure out if this difference helps
with the description or hinders it.

I got lost in section 5.5 but let's leave that for future discussion.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:08 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This is start of a two week poll on making
> draft-peru-teas-actn-poi-applicability-05 a TEAS working group document.
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
> document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
> like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
>
> The poll ends Aug 27th.
>
> Thanks,
> Pavan and Lou
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas