From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: 01 December 2022 05:06
Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color-02. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color/ Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Friday 16th Dec 2022. <tp> A problem with the IETF way of working is thrown up by this I-D. It adds a new error message to LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field a field which is modelled in pce-pcep-yang, an I-D which has just completed WG LC. This new message will render pcep-yang out-of-date. Technically this can be addressed by making the list of error messages an IANA-maintained YANG module which I think a bad idea since it is a process that has no end. The next addition to PCEP might be in the LS Capability flags which would require them to be an IANA-maintained module and so on and so forth. This I-D could contain a YANG module which augments pcep-yang which I think an even worse idea:-( There was a time, in the days of SMI, when many CCAMP registries were IANA-maintained but that seems to have fallen by the wayside, especially with TEAS which reinvented them in its I-Ds, close to but not quite the same as the IANA registries. So I see the problem but not a good solution. Tom Petch Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
