Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational
I prefer option A as well. 1) The original intent of the document was to make interop easier: sometimes by clarifying things and sometimes by tweaking the standard. Having two documents for one intent is just going to lead to more paperwork IMHO. 2) The proposed updates to the PCEP standard are not "major" updates. 3) The line between updating the standard vs clarifying the standard can be blurry in some cases. Thanks, Mike. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 5:08 PM To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational Hi PCE Chairs, PCE WG: Prefer option A - single document with both contents covered, ideally with appropriate wording or sections for the two types of content. As mentioned in the last WG session, I see the document as a valuable implementation interop checkpoint for various PCE implementations. In this situation, having both types of content (some of which can be a bit of a gray definition of update vs inform) consolidated in one document makes it simpler to digest that converged view. Thanks Andrew On 2022-09-29, 4:37 AM, "Pce on behalf of 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 ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational
Hi PCE Chairs, PCE WG: Prefer option A - single document with both contents covered, ideally with appropriate wording or sections for the two types of content. As mentioned in the last WG session, I see the document as a valuable implementation interop checkpoint for various PCE implementations. In this situation, having both types of content (some of which can be a bit of a gray definition of update vs inform) consolidated in one document makes it simpler to digest that converged view. Thanks Andrew On 2022-09-29, 4:37 AM, "Pce on behalf of 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
[Pce] Last Call: (Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for establishing relationships between sets of Label Switched Paths and Virtu
The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for establishing relationships between sets of Label Switched Paths and Virtual Networks' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-c...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes how to extend the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) association mechanism introduced by the PCEP Association Group specification, to further associate sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with a higher-level structure such as a Virtual Network (VN) requested by a customer or application. This extended association mechanism can be used to facilitate control of virtual network using the PCE architecture. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3329/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational
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/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
