Re: [Pce] Status of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext
Hi Adrian Thanks for checking. This draft depends normatively on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, which I believe still has some actions to be completed. Our plan is to advance both together. Cheers Jon -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 07 April 2017 18:33 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Status of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext Hi, Did https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext disappear down a crack? Looks like WG last call completed and the draft was updated. Also the shepherd write-up was updated. Does the big red button need to be pressed to send this to the AD? Thanks, Adrian ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Request for review on
Dheeraj This draft has now expired and been removed from the database (or at least, the easy-to-access one) so my only comment at this point is why bother? As Dhruv says, YANG is where most development is now and this I-D, in particular, fails to make a case for its existence over and above the existing RFC, which, IMO, has been rather poorly edited to produce this I-D. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "t.petch" To: "Dheeraj Parchuru" ; Cc: ; "Dheeraj Parchuru" ; "Dilip Kumar" Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [Pce] Request for review on > - Original Message - > From: "Dheeraj Parchuru" > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 2:14 AM > > "Expires: April 10, 2017 " > > I suggest that you submit a -02 (no changes unless the tools system > forces them on you:-( lest people get frustrated trying to find it and > so refrain from commenting. > > Tom Petch > > > > > Please take a few minutes to write a review to the below draft for > PCEP MIB Extensions. Thank you ! > > > > > > Name: draft-pce-mib-extensions > > > > Revision: 01 > > > > Title: Extensions to the Path Computation Element > Protocol(PCEP) Management Information Base(MIB) Module > > > > Document date: 2016-10-07 > > > > Group: Individual Submission > > > > Pages: 22 > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > URL: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_intern > et-2Ddrafts_draft-2Dpce-2Dmib-2Dextensions-2D01.txt&d=DQICaQ&c=IL_XqQWOj > ubgfqINi2jTzg&r=ZkEFLDwLRPKreZ18Kptz_z547aAkiIkkoJfsKoKt6pQ&m=Iwpd2O0WWI > CXlZdaioTBE5dalfw7mmu7XITogSst-k8&s=nZ9JKuHe-KrMUtz_f5ImB7_F0LT6pXc8oPww > -CIqgKI&e= > > > > Status: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.or > g_doc_draft-2Dpce-2Dmib-2Dextensions_&d=DQICaQ&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg& > r=ZkEFLDwLRPKreZ18Kptz_z547aAkiIkkoJfsKoKt6pQ&m=Iwpd2O0WWICXlZdaioTBE5da > lfw7mmu7XITogSst-k8&s=JtRLQcjMpzcbJZzY_c0QJhiGAj7d4YjaixuJactmsyA&e= > > > > Htmlized: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html > _draft-2Dpce-2Dmib-2Dextensions-2D01&d=DQICaQ&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r > =ZkEFLDwLRPKreZ18Kptz_z547aAkiIkkoJfsKoKt6pQ&m=Iwpd2O0WWICXlZdaioTBE5dal > fw7mmu7XITogSst-k8&s=Z1Z50_bGtB0IfVEG889281Y2IVdeuEu4vY12OOMBYEo&e= > > > > Diff: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdif > f-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dpce-2Dmib-2Dextensions-2D01&d=DQICaQ&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfq > INi2jTzg&r=ZkEFLDwLRPKreZ18Kptz_z547aAkiIkkoJfsKoKt6pQ&m=Iwpd2O0WWICXlZd > aioTBE5dalfw7mmu7XITogSst-k8&s=5hDsoNhKRRKG3ev6r67OOMQYv2OiUp-6tp4iZGlsq > yA&e= > > > > > > > > Abstract: > > > >This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base > (MIB) > > > >for use with network management protocols in the Internet > community. > > > >In particular, it describes extensions to the managed objects for > > > >modeling of the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol > > > >(PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) > and > > > >a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs, that support > > > >stateful capabilities. > > > > - Regards > > Dheeraj > > > > > > > -- -- > > > > > ___ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
All, This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 a PCE working group document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends on Monday, April 24. Many thanks, Jon ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] The PCE WG has placed draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
The PCE WG has placed draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Jonathan Hardwick) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis
Hi authors I have a few actions that I need you to take on IPR before I can submit this draft for publication. I see that there were two IPR disclosures against RFC 6006. I assume that these also apply to draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis. Please could you update the IPR system to reflect that? Please could you confirm whether you are aware of any other IPR that applies to this draft, and if so, that a disclosure has been made? When I run idnits on the draft, it spits out this warning: == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) Please could you each confirm that you are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF trust? Then we can remove the boilerplate and squash the warning. Please CC the PCE mailing list with your replies. Best regards Jon ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
yes/support Cheers, Jeff From: Pce on behalf of Date: Monday, April 10, 2017 at 09:10 To: 'Dhruv Dhody' , Jonathan Hardwick , Cc: , Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 Yes, support! Also a co-author; and tired of reviewing PCE code on GitHub to see who has been code swatting. 😉 BR, Dan. From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com] Sent: 10 April 2017 17:01 To: Jonathan Hardwick ; pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 Yes/Support! Dhruv (as co-author) On Monday 10 April 2017 04:08 PM, Jonathan Hardwick wrote: All, This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 a PCE working group document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating “yes/support” or “no/do not support”. If indicating no, please state your reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends on Monday, April 24. Many thanks, Jon ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
Yes, I think we should use this document to sort out the squatting and pointless consumption of code points by open source releases that don't go anywhere. I'm not 100% convinced that this will stop squatting, but it offers a way to not squat. I think I will want to whine about some of the details of this document, but that can be done once it is a WG draft. Thanks, Adrian From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 10 April 2017 11:39 To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 All, This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 a PCE working group document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends on Monday, April 24. Many thanks, Jon ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element of the IETF. Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Authors : Quintin Zhao Dhruv Dhody Ramanjaneya Reddy Palleti Daniel King Filename: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02.txt Pages : 40 Date: 2017-04-10 Abstract: Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs. This document obsoletes RFC 6006. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] 答复: Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
Yes/support. 发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Jonathan Hardwick 发送时间: 2017年4月10日 18:39 收件人: pce@ietf.org 抄送: pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org 主题: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 All, This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 a PCE working group document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating “yes/support” or “no/do not support”. If indicating no, please state your reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends on Monday, April 24. Many thanks, Jon ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
Yes/Support On 10 April 2017 at 06:38, Jonathan Hardwick < jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote: > All, > > > > This is the start of a two week poll on making > draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 > a PCE working group document. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ > > > > Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating > “yes/support” or “no/do not support”. If indicating no, please state your > reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to > see addressed once the document is a WG document. > > > > The poll ends on Monday, April 24. > > > > Many thanks, > > Jon > > > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Final IPR check for draft-ietf-pce-pceps
Dear authors Could you please send an email to the PCE mailing list saying whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-pceps and, if so, if it has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details.) If you are not aware of any IPR that applies, please reply saying "I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft". A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed. Many thanks Jon ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Final IPR check for draft-ietf-pce-pceps
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Regards, Dhruv From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 11 April 2017 10:21 To: draft-ietf-pce-pc...@ietf.org Cc: Cyril Margaria ; pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Final IPR check for draft-ietf-pce-pceps Dear authors Could you please send an email to the PCE mailing list saying whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-pceps and, if so, if it has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details.) If you are not aware of any IPR that applies, please reply saying "I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft". A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed. Many thanks Jon ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
