From: Pce <[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 29 September 2022 09:37
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? <tp> Well, I think that you should be more concerned about fate sharing after publication, which, long as it may take to get there, can still be much shorter than the time after publication. I think that there are plenty of documents where disparate information with different life cycles has been banged together creating future problems. Here, I am not sure that this is the case. The document is short and so a complete reissue should not be a lot of work which inclines me towards a single I-D in two parts. I wonder if during the course of preparation, further issues arise so that the document may never be quite up-to-date, but that is hypothetical. Tom Petch 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
