Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis

Hi,
Thanks to Adrian & DT for this work!

I wanted to do a substantial review of the I-D but it looks like that
has to wait for a later date :)

I managed to skim through it focusing on the changes and caught
nothing that should impede the adoption of this work.
I would have liked to see a section listing changes since RFC 3272
(but not sure how practical that is).
The diff-tool [1] was somewhat useful.

Two random points -
=
- Query: In section 1.2 -

   The key elements required in any TE solution are:

   1.  Policy
   2.  Path steering
   3.  Resource management

Does that mean any solution that just does 1 and 2 and doesn't do 3 is
not TE? Would SR-Policy and BIER-Tree engineering fall under that?
Note that we have SR-MPLS covered (rightfully so) in Section 4.1.14
under IETF techniques. I am wondering if partial-TE is a thing?
=
- Section 4.1.3, this needs to be updated -

   A number of IETF working groups have been engaged in activities
   related to the RSVP protocol.  These include the original RSVP
   working group, the MPLS working group, the Resource Allocation
   Protocol working group, and the Policy Framework working group.
=

Thanks!
Dhruv

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=rfc3272&url2=draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis-11

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:09 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This is start of a two week poll on making
> draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis-11 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 June 30th.
>
> Thanks,
> Pavan
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas