From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: 31 March 2025 10:15 Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-koldychev-pce-operational-09 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-operational/ Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. <tp> six authors; who will take a walk out into the snow? 'we use' 'we take' I prefer the impersonal Terminology lacks 'LSP-DB' PLSP-ID' Informational but includes 'MUST's PCEP Association definition belongs with other definitions not in s.5 But, overall, I think that it lacks a justification to exist ' Due to different interpretations of PCEP standards, it was found that implementations often had to adjust their behavior in order to interoperate.' Tell me more. I want to know the details, the reasons why this is worth making an RFC, which sections of which standards have been found to have multiple interpretations e.g. I read s.4.2 and think 'So what?' If you do not spell out how text has been interpreted. then likely the interpreters will go on thinking that they are doing just fine. Tom Petch Please respond by Monday 14th April 2025. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
