Re: [Pce] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with DISCUSS)
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:25 AM Jonathan Hardwick < jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote: > Hi Warren, Ignas, > > Sorry for the slow reply. I think Deborah already explained our intent on > the telechat. Yup -- somehow I'd *completely* missed the intent / text explaining that. Deborah pointed it out on the call and I cleared my DISCUSS. > As this document does not actually define any new path setup types (just a > mechanism to allow multiple path setup types) we can really only make > generalized statements about the sorts of issues that should be considered > if a particular new setup type is introduced. We chose to include a list > of questions that anyone adding a new path setup type would need to answer. > > To clarify this intent, I have made the following change. > Awesome, thank you! W > > OLD >This document generalises PCEP to allow path setup methods other than >RSVP-TE to be used by the network. It is possible that, in a given >network, multiple path setup methods will be used. It is also >possible that not all devices will support the same set of path setup >methods. Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods >may therefore raise some challenges from a configuration and >observability point of view. > >Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must >include a manageability section. The manageability section must >explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type. >It must address the following questions, which are generally >applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP. > > NEW >This document generalises PCEP to allow path setup methods other than >RSVP-TE to be used by the network (but does not define any new path >setup types, besides RSVP-TE). It is possible that, in a given >network, multiple path setup methods will be used. It is also >possible that not all devices will support the same set of path setup >methods. Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods >may therefore raise some challenges from a configuration and >observability point of view. > >Each document that defines a new Path Setup Type in the Path Setup >Type Registry (Section 8.2) must include a manageability section. >The manageability section must explain how operators can manage PCEP >with the new path setup type. It must address the following >questions, which are generally applicable when working with multiple >path setup types in PCEP. > > END > > Best regards > Jon > > -Original Message- > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] > Sent: 05 April 2018 00:24 > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric < > julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com; > pce@ietf.org > Subject: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: > (with DISCUSS) > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/ > > > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > Ignas balloted NoObj; I'll be the baddie. > > Section 6. Manageability Considerations says: > --- > Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must >include a manageability section. The manageability section must >explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type. >It must address the following questions, which are generally >applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP. > >o What are the criteria for when devices will use the new path setup > type in PCEP, and how can the operator control this? > >o How can the network be migrated to the new path setup type, and > are there any backwards compatibility issues that operators need > to be aware of? > >o Are paths set up using the new path setup type intended to coexist > with other paths over the long term and, if so, how is this > situation managed with PCEP? > > > So, I see lots of open questions, but no answers to any of these > > > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---m
[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-10.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 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-10.txt Pages : 12 Date: 2018-05-04 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-10 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-10 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] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Warren, Ignas, Sorry for the slow reply. I think Deborah already explained our intent on the telechat. As this document does not actually define any new path setup types (just a mechanism to allow multiple path setup types) we can really only make generalized statements about the sorts of issues that should be considered if a particular new setup type is introduced. We chose to include a list of questions that anyone adding a new path setup type would need to answer. To clarify this intent, I have made the following change. OLD This document generalises PCEP to allow path setup methods other than RSVP-TE to be used by the network. It is possible that, in a given network, multiple path setup methods will be used. It is also possible that not all devices will support the same set of path setup methods. Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods may therefore raise some challenges from a configuration and observability point of view. Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must include a manageability section. The manageability section must explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type. It must address the following questions, which are generally applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP. NEW This document generalises PCEP to allow path setup methods other than RSVP-TE to be used by the network (but does not define any new path setup types, besides RSVP-TE). It is possible that, in a given network, multiple path setup methods will be used. It is also possible that not all devices will support the same set of path setup methods. Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods may therefore raise some challenges from a configuration and observability point of view. Each document that defines a new Path Setup Type in the Path Setup Type Registry (Section 8.2) must include a manageability section. The manageability section must explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type. It must address the following questions, which are generally applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP. END Best regards Jon -Original Message- From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] Sent: 05 April 2018 00:24 To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric ; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with DISCUSS) Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/ -- DISCUSS: -- Ignas balloted NoObj; I'll be the baddie. Section 6. Manageability Considerations says: --- Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must include a manageability section. The manageability section must explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type. It must address the following questions, which are generally applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP. o What are the criteria for when devices will use the new path setup type in PCEP, and how can the operator control this? o How can the network be migrated to the new path setup type, and are there any backwards compatibility issues that operators need to be aware of? o Are paths set up using the new path setup type intended to coexist with other paths over the long term and, if so, how is this situation managed with PCEP? So, I see lots of open questions, but no answers to any of these ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
