Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

[Jeff Tantsura]

Yes/support


On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:10 Jonathan Hardwick <
jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote:

> Dear PCE WG
>
>
>
> This is the start of a two week poll on making
> draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group
> document.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection/
>
>
>
> 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, April 10.
>
>
>
> 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-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

[Siva Sivabalan (msiva)]

yes/support as a co-author.

Thanks,
Siva

From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:50 PM
To: Jonathan Hardwick ; pce@ietf.org; 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protect...@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG adoption poll for 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

yes/support as a co-author.

- Hari
From: Jonathan Hardwick 
mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 04:10
To: "pce@ietf.org" mailto:pce@ietf.org>>, 
"draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protect...@ietf.org"
 
mailto:draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protect...@ietf.org>>
Cc: "pce-cha...@ietf.org" 
mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: WG adoption poll for 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05
Resent-From: mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: mailto:h...@packetdesign.com>>, 
mailto:ms...@cisco.com>>, 
mailto:rto...@juniper.net>>, 
mailto:inami...@google.com>>, 
mailto:edward.cra...@gmail.com>>, 
mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 04:09

Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group 
document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection/

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, April 10.

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-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

[Hariharan Ananthakrishnan]

yes/support as a co-author.

- Hari
From: Jonathan Hardwick 
Date: Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 04:10
To: "pce@ietf.org" , 
"draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protect...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "pce-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG adoption poll for 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , , , 
, , 
Resent-Date: Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 04:09

Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group 
document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection/

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, April 10.

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-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

[Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)]

Hi WG, Chairs,

Yes, support.

Thanks,
Rakesh


From: Pce  on behalf of Jonathan Hardwick 

Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:09 AM
To: "pce@ietf.org" , 
"draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protect...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "pce-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group 
document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection/

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, April 10.

Many thanks,

Jon and Julien


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

Re: [Pce] Early Code Point Allocation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp

[Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)]

Adding Dhruv, most likely Dhruv requested for it.

On 2018-03-27, 10:12 AM, "Julien Meuric"  wrote:

Hi all,

As mentioned during our session in London, we have received a request
from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp for an early code
point allocation.

RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:

   b.  The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
   handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
   (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
   in an Internet-Draft.
   c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
   there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
   specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.

If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or
believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason,
please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining the reasons.  If
the chairs hear no objections by next Tuesday, April 3, we will kick off
the early allocation request.

Best regards,

Jon & Julien



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

[Pce] Early Code Point Allocation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp

[Julien Meuric]

Hi all,

As mentioned during our session in London, we have received a request
from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp for an early code
point allocation.

RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:

   b.  The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
   handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
   (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
   in an Internet-Draft.
   c.  The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
   there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
   specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.

If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or
believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason,
please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining the reasons.  If
the chairs hear no objections by next Tuesday, April 3, we will kick off
the early allocation request.

Best regards,

Jon & Julien

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

[Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09.txt

[Jonathan Hardwick]

This version addresses comments received from the security, OPS and GENART 
directorates during IETF last call.
Jon

-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] 
Sent: 27 March 2018 13:43
To: Siva Sivabalan ; Jonathan Hardwick 
; Jonathan Hardwick 
; Robert Varga ; Ina Minei 
; Jeff Tantsura 
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09.txt
has been successfully submitted by Jon Hardwick and posted to the IETF 
repository.

Name:   draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
Revision:   09
Title:  Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
Document date:  2018-03-27
Group:  pce
Pages:  11
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/
Htmlized:   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09
Htmlized:   
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
Diff:   
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09

Abstract:
   A Path Computation Element (PCE) 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 the PCE communication protocol (PCEP) to
   allow support for different path setup methods over a given PCEP
   session.


  


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.

The IETF Secretariat

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

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.

Title   : Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages
Authors : Siva Sivabalan
  Jeff Tantsura
  Ina Minei
  Robert Varga
  Jon Hardwick
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09.txt
Pages   : 11
Date: 2018-03-27

Abstract:
   A Path Computation Element (PCE) 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 the PCE communication protocol (PCEP) to
   allow support for different path setup methods over a given PCEP
   session.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09


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] WG adoption poll for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

[Dhruv Dhody]

Yes/support!

Dhruv (as a co-author)

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Jonathan Hardwick <
jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote:

> Dear PCE WG
>
>
>
> This is the start of a two week poll on making 
> draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05
> a PCE working group document.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-
> stateful-path-protection/
>
>
>
> 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, April 10.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Jon and Julien
>
>
>
>
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

[Jonathan Hardwick]

Dear PCE WG

This is the start of a two week poll on making 
draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group 
document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection/

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, April 10.

Many thanks,

Jon and Julien


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