Path Computation Element
charter-ietf-pce-08

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-pce-07-04

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term `native`; alternatives might be `built-in`, `fundamental`, `ingrained`,
  `intrinsic`, `original`

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot 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 ...."

2) in the same vein, the 2nd paragraph is only about (G)MPLS with terms like LSR and LSP.

3) in the last two bullets: what is the difference between "in cooperation" and "in *close* cooperation" ?

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'

[Ballot comment]
Like Martin, I suggest to add some text around collaboration with the CATS WG.

May I also suggest adding that all work items have an intended status of "standards track" ?

[Ballot comment]
I do have a minor concern that this does create some overlap with the spring charter, however, having discussed this with Jim and John I don't this its sufficient concern to warrant not proceeding.  I do believe however that the spring charter may need some tightening to avoid potential conflicts.

[Ballot comment]
When PCE was chartered, it was scoped to computing MPLS and GMPLS paths. Since then, other technologies that have the concept of paths have become interested in using PCE too (e.g., Segment Routing). This update puts support for such technologies in scope for PCE.

[Ballot comment]
This group appears to have a fair amount of overlap with the soon-to-close ALTO, but that certainly does not prevent rechartering. Arguably, CATS is also related, but that's not my WG so I'm sure the relevant ADs will work that out.

Is TED synchronization in or out of scope?

This is a fairly minor (IMO) recharter, to bring path computation for technologies other than MPLS in-scope, and explicitly naming BIER, DETNET, and SR. The WG has already been working on these for some time; we recently noticed the charter is scoped only to {G}MPLS.

Added milestone "Submit PCE P2MP PCEP protocol extensions to the IESG to be considered as an Proposed Standard RFC", due December 2008, from current group milestones

An initial version of a minor recharter to accommodate the new TEAS working group.

This revision has not yet been reviewed by the PCE working group