I appreciate the feedback, it's good that we settled on a decision. I will go 
ahead and split it into 2 documents.

Thanks,
Mike.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] Scoping Items from draft-koldychev-pce-operational

Dear PCE WG,

This issue has been opened for while. Thank you to those who took time to share 
their views.

We acknowledge that having a single document may be likely to reduce the 
initial paperwork (at least until the I-D starts to be reviewed by people 
outside the PCE WG). However, as stated by Adrian, the line between updates and 
clarifications "must not be blurry", all the more as the standard track piece 
of work may update some RFCs. This must be true both for us, as a WG, and for 
future reader of the documents, especially if they are not familiar with IETF 
way of working when it comes to multi-status document content.

As a result, let's follow John's guidelines, voiced during the London meeting, 
and split the I-D into 2 documents with focused status. 
Starting from there, we'll be able to move forward.

Thank you,

Dhruv & Julien


On 29/09/2022 10:37, [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

Reply via email to