[Pce] Last Call: (Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages) to Proposed Standard

[The IESG]

The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Conveying path setup type in PCEP
messages'
   as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-03-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   A Path Computation Element can compute Traffic Engineering (TE) paths
   through a network that are subject to various constraints.
   Currently, TE paths are Label Switched Paths (LSPs) which are set up
   using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol.  However, other TE path setup
   methods are possible within the PCE architecture.  This document
   proposes an extension to PCEP to allow support for different path
   setup methods over a given PCEP session.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Adrian Farrel]

Jeff, I definitely agree with you about kitchen sinks.
OTOH, in this case the lack of coordination is actually painful and creates a 
mess since each vendor uses a different way to instruct its devices after a 
PCinitiate has completed successfully.
 
A Deployment Considerations section sounds just the thing. Maybe we will lean 
on you for text after adoption :-)
 
A
 
 
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 20 February 2018 15:39
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Jonathan Hardwick'; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03
 
I’d “carefully” support the adoption, while functionality is needed, and having 
complete set in a single protocol has its advantages (and complexity 
associated), we already have one “kitchen sink” protocol, that has however been 
designed to support 100M of entries and deal with bursty data, PCEP is yet to 
get there. Deployment consideration section would be of great value.
 
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce  on behalf of Adrian Farrel 

Reply-To: 
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:17
To: Jonathan Hardwick , 
Cc: , 
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03
 
Unsurprisingly, I also think we should adopt this drafts.
To me it seems like a critical piece of function that we "forgot" when we 
started to allow thee PCE to have control.
AFAIK current implementations "bodge" around the issue backing up PCEP messages 
with other control messages (such as Netconf) to say how the LSP should be used.
We need a consolidated approach.
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 20 February 2018 13:34
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03
 
Dear PCE WG
 
This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a 
PCE working group document.
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/
 
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 Tuesday, March 6.
 
Many thanks,
 
Jon and Julien
 
___ 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] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Jeff Tantsura]

I’d “carefully” support the adoption, while functionality is needed, and having 
complete set in a single protocol has its advantages (and complexity 
associated), we already have one “kitchen sink” protocol, that has however been 
designed to support 100M of entries and deal with bursty data, PCEP is yet to 
get there. Deployment consideration section would be of great value.

 

Cheers,

Jeff

From: Pce  on behalf of Adrian Farrel 

Reply-To: 
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:17
To: Jonathan Hardwick , 
Cc: , 
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

 

Unsurprisingly, I also think we should adopt this drafts.

To me it seems like a critical piece of function that we "forgot" when we 
started to allow thee PCE to have control.

AFAIK current implementations "bodge" around the issue backing up PCEP messages 
with other control messages (such as Netconf) to say how the LSP should be used.

We need a consolidated approach.

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 20 February 2018 13:34
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

 

Dear PCE WG

 

This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a 
PCE working group document.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/

 

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 Tuesday, March 6.

 

Many thanks,

 

Jon and Julien

 

___ 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] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Adrian Farrel]

Unsurprisingly, I also think we should adopt this drafts.
To me it seems like a critical piece of function that we "forgot" when we
started to allow thee PCE to have control.
AFAIK current implementations "bodge" around the issue backing up PCEP messages
with other control messages (such as Netconf) to say how the LSP should be used.
We need a consolidated approach.
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 20 February 2018 13:34
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03
 
Dear PCE WG
 
This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a
PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/
 
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 Tuesday, March 6.
 
Many thanks,
 
Jon and Julien
 
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Leeyoung]

Hi,

Yes/support.

Thanks,
Young

From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:34 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a 
PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/

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 Tuesday, March 6.

Many thanks,

Jon and Julien

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Huaimo Chen]

Yes/Support.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:34 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a 
PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/

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 Tuesday, March 6.

Many thanks,

Jon and Julien

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Daniele Ceccarelli]

Yes/support

BR
Daniele

From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: martedì 20 febbraio 2018 14:48
To: Jonathan Hardwick 
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

Yes/Support!

Regards,
Dhruv (co-author)

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Hardwick 
> 
wrote:
Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a 
PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/

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 Tuesday, March 6.

Many thanks,

Jon and Julien


___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Dhruv Dhody]

Yes/Support!

Regards,
Dhruv (co-author)

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Hardwick <
jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote:

> Dear PCE WG
>
>
>
> This is the start of a two week poll on making
> draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a PCE working group document.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/
>
>
>
> 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 Tuesday, March 6.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Jon and Julien
>
>
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Building the PCE Agenda for IETF 101

[Jonathan Hardwick]

Hi Adrian

Thanks for the suggestion and for the gentle reminder.  I have just polled for 
adoption of this draft.  Given this, it does not sound like you will need this 
slot, after all.  Of course, if the poll throws up issues that must be 
discussed, or something else turns up, please feel free to renew your request.

Best regards
Jon and Julien


-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] 
Sent: 19 February 2018 16:35
To: pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Building the PCE Agenda for IETF 101

Hi Julien, all.

> - the draft(s) you want to discuss,

draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03.txt

> - the expected presenter name,

Adrian Farrel

> - the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot,

10 minutes

> - the reason why you need face-to-face time as opposed to using the 
> mailing list (open 24/7).

Weeell, we don't actually have anything to discuss, but we figure that it is 
now four months since there was general support for moving this forward as WG 
work, and while we have been working on the text and on implementation, we 
don't seem to have got any traction with the WG chairs. So, we would spend our 
10 minutes helping the chairs prioritise thee WG work :-)

Of course, if the WG would like a reminder of what this work is and why it is 
important, we would happily deliver that. OTOH, rtfm.

A

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

[Jonathan Hardwick]

Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 a 
PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec/

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 Tuesday, March 6.

Many thanks,

Jon and Julien

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce