Hi I also prefer two documents because they should (IMHO) be in two different Categories. The split proposed by Dhruv makes sense in that regards.
Thanks, Cyril On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 22:54, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > 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 <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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
