I, too, was stimulated by the response on this point. I am certainly not saying that the WG must change its approach here. But, given that a mechanism already exists to carry information describing how to associate traffic with an LSP, I thought that there should be some discussion (not necessarily in the draft) of why the existing mechanism was not used. I had expected a response that said something like, "We thought about this and rejected it for the following reasons. We confirmed our reasoning with the working group."
I'll review the authors' other responses. Best, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: 12 February 2025 03:17 To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; andrew.st...@nokia.com Subject: [Pce] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Mahesh, > On Feb 11, 2025, at 10:06 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > I was also piqued by the comment from the authors that "Given that the > document > has reached this stage, it is safe to assume that there was consensus in the > WG > to use this TLV. AFAIK there was no discussion or debate during the WG process > on whether the draft could have used an alternative encoding mechanism." If > the > discussion never happened, how can we claim that there was consensus in the > WG? I don’t think our process requires that a WG explore the entire potential solution space (which is often very large, even if only considering reasonable solutions) before reaching consensus to use a particular solution. Nor should it. —John _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
