Dear PCE WG,This issue has been opened for while. Thank you to those who took time to share their views.
We acknowledge that having a single document may be likely to reduce the initial paperwork (at least until the I-D starts to be reviewed by people outside the PCE WG). However, as stated by Adrian, the line between updates and clarifications "must not be blurry", all the more as the standard track piece of work may update some RFCs. This must be true both for us, as a WG, and for future reader of the documents, especially if they are not familiar with IETF way of working when it comes to multi-status document content.
As a result, let's follow John's guidelines, voiced during the London meeting, and split the I-D into 2 documents with focused status. Starting from there, we'll be able to move forward.
Thank you, Dhruv & Julien On 29/09/2022 10:37, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
Dear PCE WG,Let's follow up on the discussion started during IETF 114 about draft-koldychev-pce-operational [1]. The I-D currently tackles different issues about PCEP, some of them being informational, some other updating existing PCEP specifications. Among the options we discussed to proceed with this work, 2 remain:1. Keep a single draft, but clearly separate the two types of content; 2. Break it up into 2 drafts. We'd like to hear the WG's opinion whether you prefer:a- a single standard track I-D, with both content types sharing fate until publication? b- a clarification I-D on informational track + an I-D updating PCEP on standard track (possibly progressing at different paces)?Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-operational/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
