[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been disclosed to the IETF. I am aware of IPR applicable to this draft, but that has not yet been disclosed to the IETF. I will work to ensure that it will be disclosed in a timely manner. Thanks, - Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] 答复: WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 specifies the procedure and pcep extensions when a PCE-based controller is responsible for configuring the forwarding actions on the routers. It is an important and essential extension for pcep, I support for the adoption of the document. > -邮件原件- > 发件人: Pce 代表 julien.meu...@orange.com > 发送时间: 2023年1月17日 2:00 > 收件人: pce@ietf.org > 主题: [Pce] WG Adoption of > draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6 > > Hi all, > > This e-mail starts an adoption poll for > draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you consider > this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item? > > Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the WG > should not adopt it. > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controll > er-srv6/ > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
Hi all, I have read the document and find PCECC for SRv6 is useful. I support the WG adoption of the document. Tan -邮件原件- 发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 julien.meu...@orange.com 发送时间: 2023年1月17日 2:00 收件人: pce@ietf.org 主题: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6 Hi all, This e-mail starts an adoption poll for draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item? Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the WG should not adopt it. Thanks, Julien [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
Hi, Thanks to the Chairs for starting this call. This draft has been updated according to the feedback collected through email exchanges and presentations. As a co-author of this work, I support the WG adoption of it. Thank you! Best Regards, Shuping -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:00 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6 Hi all, This e-mail starts an adoption poll for draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item? Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the WG should not adopt it. Thanks, Julien [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational
I appreciate the feedback, it's good that we settled on a decision. I will go ahead and split it into 2 documents. Thanks, Mike. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:58 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational 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 ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] The PCE WG has placed draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6 in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
The PCE WG has placed draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6 in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Julien Meuric) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
Hi all, This e-mail starts an adoption poll for draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item? Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the WG should not adopt it. Thanks, Julien [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational
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
