I also agree and I think the right thing to do is to make PCEPS a normative reference, as Alvaro suggested. We should have PCEPS submitted for publication in time for the Chicago meeting, so we can all "just get on with it".
Jon -----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 March 2017 22:13 To: [email protected]; 'The IESG' <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09: (with COMMENT) On 3/13/17, 5:33 PM, "iesg on behalf of Adrian Farrel" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > Ideally, everyone just gets on with it and the security update is > handled by draft-ietf-pce-pceps. I agree. That security update doesn’t belong in this document. Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
