1. IRO-Survey
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey/)
[JM] This was preliminary and necessary work for the following I-D.
Not sure the overhead from authors/chairs/shepherds to reach RFC is
required, but if the WG thinks otherwise, we may consider it.
Ramon> no preference, either way. I guess a use for the survey is to
support the IRO update document, and having it as RFC means it will not
expire. otoh, I agree it is a significant overhead and will, eventually,
become obsolete. If it is dropped, stating in the IRO update draft that
a surver was conducted would be enough.
2. IRO-Update
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-update/)
WG Adoption Call?
A simple I-D, should be fast tracked?
[JM] This is the significant output of the above. We will proceed
accordingly.
Ramon> Replied in previous mail, I am in favor of adoption, no objection
to fast-track (*if* the WG agrees on ordered list, and L bit, which is
the main and only change, iirc)
3. Domain-Sequence
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/)
Wenhu asked WG about the track of the document, What is the WG
opinion? Does it needs to be on standards track?
Ready to be moved along towards publication...
[JM] Here, we really need to hear the WG's opinion. It is not too late
to change (again), but we need to see more views about this before
moving again.
Ramon> (as a co-author) I have a personal preference for standards
track, but I would not object strongly to experimental.
Thanks
Ramon
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
