Hi Minxue,
For the record, we guess you intended to respond to the thread about the
adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6. :-)
Thanks,
Dhruv & Julien
On 24/01/2023 03:27, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Chair and WG,
I support the adopting of this work. This document seems a reasonable
solution for SRv6 computing and allocation with PCE based control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
王敏学/ Wang Minxue
中国移动通信研究院 基础网络技术研究所 / China Mobile Research Institute
地址: 北京市西城区宣武门西大街32号创新大厦,100053
电话: 010-15801696688-33202
传真：010-63601087
Email: [email protected]
-------------------------------------
*From:* [email protected]
*Date:* 2023-01-17 00:57
*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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
