I went ahead and made these changes, they’re in version 07-05. Chairs, please take a look and let me know if you’re fine with this version. If so, the approval process is complete and I’ll notify the Secretariat.
Thanks, —John > On Dec 14, 2023, at 9:56 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > John, > > You nailed it. With the suggest NEW text, I think that the PCE charter will > be clearer > > -éric > > From: John Scudder <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, 14 December 2023 at 15:52 > To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> > Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-pce-07-04: > (with COMMENT) > > In line. Chairs and working group, please speak up quickly if you object to > any of the changes proposed below. > > > On Dec 14, 2023, at 5:19 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > > charter-ietf-pce-07-04: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CAIavEX72YXvVwmh8J-0C0sbHmW9lfDb9qmxJz1gdBk0Vs4nMYBhhmF5LqUbWmgw9CrYES30gLk8$ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > After re-reading the proposed charter for the n+1 time, some more comments: > > > > 1) the first paragraph would benefit by directly stating that it is about > > MPLS, > > SR, BIER, Detnet... rather than adding a 2nd sentence "Further, the PCE WG > > ...." > > Something like this? > > OLD: > The PCE Working Group is chartered to specify the required protocols > so as to enable a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based architecture > for the computation of paths for MPLS and GMPLS Point to Point and > Point to Multi-point Traffic Engineered LSPs. Further, the PCE WG also > handles protocol extensions for new path setup types of Segment > Routing (SR), BIER, and Detnet. > > NEW: > The PCE Working Group is chartered to specify the required protocols > to enable a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based architecture > for the computation of paths for MPLS and GMPLS Point to Point and > Point to Multi-point Traffic Engineered LSPs, as well as new path setup > types of Segment Routing (SR), BIER, and Detnet. > > > 2) in the same vein, the 2nd paragraph is only about (G)MPLS with terms like > > LSR and LSP. > > As in, > > OLD: > In this architecture path computation does not necessarily occur on > the head-end (ingress) LSR, but on some other path computation entity > that may not be physically located on each head-end LSR. The TEAS > Working Group is responsible for defining and extending architectures > for Traffic Engineering (TE) and it is expected that the PCE and TEAS > WGs will work closely together on elements of TE architectures that > utilize PCE. > > NEW: > In this architecture path computation does not necessarily occur on > the head-end (ingress) router, but on some other path computation entity > that may not be physically located on each head-end router. The TEAS > Working Group is responsible for defining and extending architectures > for Traffic Engineering (TE) and it is expected that the PCE and TEAS > WGs will work closely together on elements of TE architectures that > utilize PCE. > > > 3) in the last two bullets: what is the difference between "in cooperation" > > and > > "in *close* cooperation" ? > > One is closer than the other? ;-) > > I think we can strike “close”. > > > 4) as written in my previous review, it would be clearer if the work items > > are > > directly qualified with 'standard tracks' or if 'specification' was used > > rather > > than 'definition' > > Essentially, s/Definition/Specification/ (4x), right? My bad on missing this. > > Thanks for the additional review and helpful comments, > > --John _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
