Hi Dhruv, Julien: The main motivation of this document is to have a single (in particular, a brief) document that sheds light on the inter-op issues encountered at various multivendor public/private inter-op events. Even though PCEP is a simple and a proven protocol, it is perceived to be complex due to large number of RFCs/drafts. A single document of this sort would make developers life easier. I am inclined towards option A.
Thanks, Siva On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:37 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
