Hi Loa, Thanks for your review and feedback.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 4:08 PM Loa Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > Dhruv, > > I was almost ready to send a mail to the same effect, when I got this. > This is the right approach. > > I have something we might want to consider. If you add this to the charter: > > "Further, the PCE WG also handle protocol extensions for new > path setup types of Segment Routing (SR), BIER, and Detnet." > > Do we also want to to add content to the bullets under "Work items"? > Today we have: > > "In cooperation with protocol specific Working Group (e.g., MPLS, > CCAMP), development of LSP signaling (RSVP-TE) extensions required > to support PCE-based path computation models." > > Do we want to extend the list with SPRING, BIER and DETNET? > > It is captured with these bullets at the end. - Definition of the PCEP extensions for SR-MPLS and SRv6 paths as per SR Policy architecture in cooperation with SPRING Working Group. - Definition of the PCEP extension for new path setup types (such as BIER and DETNET) in close cooperation with the respective Working Groups. I can bring it forward if you think that they need to be right after the RSVP-TE bullet item. Thanks! Dhruv > > /Loa > > On 2023-07-07 12:02, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi Aijun, > > > > Two things, > > > > (1) We dont want a charter that is open-ended with the proposed text > > "...and other possible forward data plane"; the correct thing to do > > would be to do a quick recharter when we have something new. > > (2) Instead of adding a Native-IP in that list, we suggest using the > > term CCDR and club this with PCECC with this change - > > > > OLD: > > - In cooperation with the TEAS Working Group, development of PCE- > > based architectures for Traffic Engineering including PCE as a > > Central Controller (PCECC). The PCEP extensions are developed in > > the PCE Working Group. > > NEW: > > - In cooperation with the TEAS Working Group, development of PCE- > > based architectures for Traffic Engineering including PCE as a > > Central Controller (PCECC) and Central Control Dynamic Routing > > (CCDR). The PCEP extensions are developed inthe PCE Working > > Group. > > END > > > > I made this change in GitHub - > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/tree/main > > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/tree/main> > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv & Julien > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 6:47 AM Aijun Wang <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi, Dhruv:____ > > > > __ __ > > > > I recommend the following changes to the current charter:____ > > > > __ __ > > > > __1)__Further, the PCE WG also handle protocol extensions for new > > path setup types of Segment Routing (SR), BIER, and Detnet.____ > > > > èFurther, the PCE WG also handle protocol extensions for new path > > setup types of Segment Routing (SR), Native IP, BIER, Detnet and > > other possible forward data plane.____ > > > > 2）Add one items in the “Milestone”____ > > > > èJuly 2023 Submit PCEP extension for Native IP as a Proposed > > Standard____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Thanks in advance.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Best Regards____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Aijun Wang____ > > > > China Telecom____ > > > > __ __ > > > > *发件人:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] *代表 > > *Dhruv Dhody > > *发送时间:*2023年7月4日13:15 > > *收件人:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > *主题:*Re: [Pce] Proposed PCE WG Charter update____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Hi WG, ____ > > > > __ __ > > > > A gentle reminder for your comments on the proposed text for > > recharter! ____ > > > > We can also use a few "I have read the proposed charter update text > > and I support rechartering!" :)____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Thanks! ____ > > > > Dhruv____ > > > > __ __ > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:07 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:____ > > > > Hi WG, ____ > > > > __ __ > > > > The PCE WG charter (-07) was last updated in 2014. Your chairs > > and AD discussed the need to bring the charter up to date. We > > have made a proposed small update (-08) and placed it in our > > WG's Github - https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter > > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter>____ > > > > __ __ > > > > A diff of the changes can be seen at - > > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/main/charter-ietf-pce-07.txt&difftype=--html&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/main/charter-ietf-pce-08.txt > < > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/main/charter-ietf-pce-07.txt&difftype=--html&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/main/charter-ietf-pce-08.txt > >____ > > > > __ __ > > > > We request the WG to review the proposed charter update. We > > suggest using the mailing list for discussion and proposing > > substantial changes. Minor edits may also be suggested via PR > > directly on the GitHub. ____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Please provide all your comments before 5th July. We would then > > forward the request to our AD. ____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Thanks! ____ > > > > Dhruv & Julien____ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > -- > Loa Andersson email: [email protected] > Senior MPLS Expert [email protected] > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
