Re: [Pce] Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
On 16/05/17 09:55, Julien Meuric wrote: > 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-lsp-setup-type > 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". I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Regards, Robert signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19.txt
This new version of the stateful PCE draft resolves the comments received during IETF last call. Thanks for your patience! Best regards Jon -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: 17 May 2017 15:47 To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19.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 : PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Authors : Edward Crabbe Ina Minei Jan Medved Robert Varga Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19.txt Pages : 54 Date: 2017-05-17 Abstract: The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19 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 mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
Julien, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com] Sent: 16 May 2017 08:55 To: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type 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-lsp-setup-type 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, Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19.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 : PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Authors : Edward Crabbe Ina Minei Jan Medved Robert Varga Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19.txt Pages : 54 Date: 2017-05-17 Abstract: The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-19 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
Re: [Pce] Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Best regards Jon -Original Message- From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com] Sent: 16 May 2017 08:55 To: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type 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-lsp-setup-type 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, Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE: inconsistency in "resource limit" text
Hi all Thanks for your feedback on this issue. I think we are probably in a position to close this issue down. To summarize: - The original intent was that the PCE MUST close the session. - It seems that nobody has implemented the "exiting resource limit exceeded state" notification. On the other hand, if we did weaken "MUST close" to "MAY close", then the draft provides no guidance about what the PCC and PCE are supposed to do next with this session in which only part of the state has been kept by the PCE. I don't want to start drafting that guidance at this late stage. My conclusion is that we should specify that the PCE MUST close the session, and we should release the code point currently allocated to the "exiting resource limit exceeded state" notification. If anyone has strong objections to this, please shout ASAP. Many thanks Jon -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Varga Sent: 17 May 2017 12:52 To: Ramon Casellas ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE: inconsistency in "resource limit" text On 09/05/17 10:50, Ramon Casellas wrote: > Hi Julien, > > This is indeed making me raise more questions than expected. > > - Reading the section I got the feeling that any event preventing to > reach full sync state caused a PCErr (now PCNtf) and a MUST session > close. was it the intent? Hello Ramon, with a co-author hat on, but without loading the draft completely into brain again, yes, this was the intent. The reasoning behind is to provide an initial baseline for the state present on the PCC, agreed by both PCE and PCC. This simplifies the protocol design a bit, as we do not have to deal with state synchronization being half-done. Furthermore it gives the PCE a chance to attempt to re-negotiate the session parameters based on the problem it has seen with the PCRpt. Regards, Robert ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE: inconsistency in "resource limit" text
On 09/05/17 10:50, Ramon Casellas wrote: > Hi Julien, > > This is indeed making me raise more questions than expected. > > - Reading the section I got the feeling that any event preventing to > reach full sync state caused a PCErr (now PCNtf) and a MUST session > close. was it the intent? Hello Ramon, with a co-author hat on, but without loading the draft completely into brain again, yes, this was the intent. The reasoning behind is to provide an initial baseline for the state present on the PCC, agreed by both PCE and PCC. This simplifies the protocol design a bit, as we do not have to deal with state synchronization being half-done. Furthermore it gives the PCE a chance to attempt to re-negotiate the session parameters based on the problem it has seen with the PCRpt. Regards, Robert signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
