Hi Éric, Thanks for your review.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:28 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-pce-07-03: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Like Martin, I suggest adding some text around collaboration with the > CATS WG. > > Dhruv: This is what I replied to Martin regarding any CATS work - There is a possibility in future for it but as of now there is no work > proposed nor it is listed in the CATS charter. The WG also discussed this point at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/kxt-R3J7hONnxaDya1EMcEyLcC8/ and we concluded to leave that for a future recharter if/when the need arrives. May I also suggest adding that all work items have an intended status of > "standards track" > > > Dhruv: By default, all protocol extensions are meant to be "standards track". However WG has produced informational documents when there is a need for a separate applicability statement or a requirement document in the past. I would like to leave the charter text as it is. Note that the Milestones have the intended status. Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
