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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 5:08 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] 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 [email protected]" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
