Hi, It is likely I might be rough on this, but wanted to put my thoughts on the list as well (I said as much in the last IETF meeting).
My preference (as a WG participant) is for two documents - (1) A very small standards track I-D that updates RFC 8231 with clear old/new text on what is being updated (2) A larger informational I-D that matches the name "operational clarification" on how things works with figures and explanations For (1) see RFC 8786 as reference! For (2) see RFC 6007 as a clarification document for SVEC. IMHO this separation and clear focused I-D serve the WG well :) We can discuss this during the WG session tomorrow! I have added it to the WG chairs slide as a discussion point! Thanks! Dhruv On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 9:37 AM <[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
