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"
<pce-boun...@ietf.org 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
