Hi Adrian Agreed. We will make it more clear.
Many Thanks! Gyan On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:30 AM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > Yes, thanks, Gyan. > > > > I think you have captured it all, although some of the behaviours are > “hidden” in assumptions in the text. > > > > That is: > > > > - A PCEP speaker that offers this feature to its peer that does not > support or does not wish to support the feature will not receive indication > of support in the Open message, and so is expected to not use the feature. > > > > - A PCEP speaker that receives any of the objects that are part of the > feature when use of the feature has not been agreed, will <do something> as > described in <reference>. > > > > Of course, this is “business as usual” but the reviewer of the text will > not necessarily know this. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 25 August 2021 05:44 > *To:* adr...@olddog.co.uk > *Cc:* Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps! > > > > Hi Adrian > > > > > > See section 1.1 should have answers to your questions related to the > experimental draft. > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-21.html#section-1.1 > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Gyan > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 2:40 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi Gyan, > > > > I am very much in favour of positioning this work as Experimental. > > > > It is important (as with all IETF Experiments) to capture: > > - What stops this extension “escaping" in the Internet? > > - What stops this experiment clashing with other work or harming > deployed equipment? > > - How will you judge the success or failure of the experiment, > and when? > > - What follow-up to the experiment do you propose? > > > > Best, > > Adrian > > > > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 05 July 2021 07:43 > *To:* Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk>; Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; > draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep...@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>; > pce@ietf.org > *Subject:* draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps! > > > > > > Dear PCE WG, > > > > We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap > and a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE > were highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused. > > > > This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and > development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing > mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of > PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it > may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite > protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still > interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong > technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc... > > > > As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments > and expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well > as impact in other protocols and the network, etc. > > > > From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback > from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest > in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is > ready. Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies > the implementation of SDN controller. One question asked by Aijun was > related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning > hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN > (SDN-like) SBI. For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like) > SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the > network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the > R flag in the open message is set to 0. > > > > We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding > interest in PCEP-LS. > > > > We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have > interest in this experimental implementation of this work. > > > > I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and > development efforts of this draft as experimental. > > > > As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on > scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact > to other protocols on the network. > > > > Thanks! > > Gyan (on behalf of co-authors) > > > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf > > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ > > == > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > > -- > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > > -- > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
