Hi, I support this work.
I wonder whether it would be wise to merge with draft-farrel-pce-experimental-errors so that we only have one IANA document in the pipe. Cheers, Adrian From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <andrew.stone=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: 31 July 2024 19:44 To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com>; julien.meu...@orange.com Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update Hi Ketan, PCE WG I had the same thoughts as (3), but figured it might be a little unnecessary to have explicitly listed. If we think it’ll be useful in the future to be able to point to this document and say “RFCXXXX recommended PCEP WG use IETF Review on new registries” then that sounds good to me. Thanks Andrew From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com <mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 at 2:16 PM To: julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> <julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> > Cc: pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> <pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> > Subject: [Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hello All, I support the adoption of this document. Some non-blocking suggestions for the WG considerations: 1) The text in section 2 gives the indication that these changes have already happened but that is not the case. This draft is just proposing changes at this stage and perhaps the past tense is appropriate after those actions have been acted upon by IANA? 2) Consider moving everything from under section 2 into the IANA considerations section since this is all about the IANA actions/updates. 3) Do we want to convey that all future PCEP IANA registries follow the IETF Review process? as "RECOMMENDED"? Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:37 AM <julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> > wrote: Hi all, In his review of the "native IP" draft, John suggested to consider adjusting to "IETF Review" the allocation policy of some of the PCEP registries currently using "Standards Action". Dhruv has submitted draft-dhody-pce-iana-update to quickly resolve this concern and bring higher consistency among PCEP registries. As a result, does the WG support the adoption of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update [1] as a WG item? Please, share your feedback using the PCE mailing list and include your rationale in case you're opposed. Thanks, Julien [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iana-update/ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 -- pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org <mailto:pce-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
