Hi Tom, PCE WG Thank you for your comments and review:
* Regarding authors - yes, agreed something to sort out. It was previously 5 but I hopped on to help being editor on it. One name will eventually need to drop * Agreed, we need to update the text to be impersonal and remove the "we" language. Will do that post-adoption call. * Thanks for noticing that - will update terminology * Good point. The MUSTS are there to likely be more assertive and clearer, but, since it is informational, we can certainly relax that language in ways that still make assertive language without the requirements terms, I think. Will adjust post-adoption call. * Noted about association definition. Speaking purely for myself and not the co-authors as I have not discussed it with them yet: I personally do not see value in exploring and discussing N possible interpretations(s) that individual(s) have had in the past, as opposed to simply discussing -the- intended interpretation we (the co-authors, the WG and interoperable implementations) need people to have. The point is not to point out misinterpretation(s) but rather to restate and clarify existing RFCs in different wording and language presented in a more-direct way on certain topics. As well, it's worth considering that this document was also initiated back in 2019 - again speaking purely for myself - historical records or data backing what the misinterpretation(s) were prior to that may perhaps be incomplete or reliant on human memory which might not be that accurate. In addition, it's worth noting that the 'clarifies certain aspects' remark in the abstract also encompasses not just for misinterpretation but ambiguity of certain behavior that led to open questions - the new overload section 7 is a good example of that. The introduction should be tuned to point this out as well. Thanks again Andrew From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> Date: Friday, April 4, 2025 at 6:32 AM To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>, pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org> Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>, draft-koldychev-pce-operatio...@ietf.org <draft-koldychev-pce-operatio...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-koldychev-pce-operational-09 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. 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
