Hi WG, In discussion with our ADs and with other WG chairs in the Routing Area, the PCE chairs have decided that it would be good for the working group to have a stated policy about what implementation is needed, desired, or required before a draft can advance for publication as an RFC. The full range of options is available from "no implementation required" up to "multiple independent and inter-operable implementations required". The purposes are to help ensure quality and implementable RFCs, to make sure that our work is truly relevant and needed, and to understand the relative priorities of our work.
The chairs briefly mentioned this at the IETF 104 PCE WG meeting, and we promised to start a discussion on what 'Implementation Policy' to set for the PCE WG. This is a subject for the WG to decide through the usual rough consensus, but the chairs would like to start the discussion with a proposal as follows - "All WG I-Ds are required to include an 'Implementation Status' Section (as per RFC7942) to document known existing or planned implementations. The chairs can make exceptions on a per-document basis." Please raise any concern with the proposed implementation policy by 24th April 2019. Thanks! Adrian, Dhruv & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
