Re: [Pce] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions

[BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A]

Hi,

This document has already completed Last Call (10/29), so it’s ready to go 
ahead as soon as the authors update for the directorate review comments. While 
GMPLS does support ITU-T data planes (OTN, WSON), this document is on PCE 
support for GMPLS. It is in support of already existing GMPLS specifications, 
nothing new w.r.t. data plane technologies. I don’t see the need to liaison. 
ITU-T has not indicated any interest in GMPLS or PCE evolution, we have not 
liaised in the past on our work on these protocols (except for ASON). If ITU-T 
is now evaluating use of GMPLS or PCE, I would suggest for folks 
cross-participating to encourage ITU-T to liaison us so we can support their 
efforts.

Thanks,
Deborah


From: David Sinicrope 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 9:05 AM
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; julien.meu...@orange.com; 
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org
Cc: 'Jonathan Hardwick' ; rtg-...@ietf.org; 
'Yemin (Amy)' ; pce@ietf.org; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A 

Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions


I agree with you both.  My comment was imprecise with the level of formality 
intended.   The intent was to make SG15 aware of this work given that many of 
the parameters and operations discussed and the target types of networks (i.e., 
OTN, WSON) would be of interest to that community.  I wasn't really thinking of 
a formal liaison exchange since a formal SG15 liaison response to IETF could 
not be approved until their June Plenary next year, well after this document 
would/should be published.  A short liaison to SG15 (specifically Working Party 
3) in the manner Adrian suggests should do the trick.



Something like:

"The PCE working group would like to draw your attention to 
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions,
 which is currently is entering the approval stages of the IETF process.   This 
document, dealing with PCEP extensions for the GMPLS control plane, is targeted 
for operation with OTN and WSON networks and may be of interest to the SG15 
community.  The IETF welcomes individual feedback and comments via the PCE 
email list mailto:pce@ietf.org>> from those interested.   While 
no formal liaison response is requested, any comments and feedback should be 
provided no later than ."



Thanks,

Dave



-Original Message-

From: "Adrian uk>" mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>>

Date: Monday, November 19, 2018 at 8:04 AM

To: Julien Meuric mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com>>, 
David Sinicrope 
mailto:david.sinicr...@ericsson.com>>, 
"draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org"
 
mailto:draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org>>

Cc: 'Jonathan Hardwick' 
mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>>, 
"rtg-...@ietf.org" 
mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>, "'Yemin (Amy)'" 
mailto:amy.ye...@huawei.com>>, 
"pce@ietf.org" mailto:pce@ietf.org>>, 
DEBORAH BRUNGARD mailto:db3...@att.com>>

Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions



I tend to agree with Julien.

More eyes are always welcome, and sending a liaison statement or informal 
email pointing to the work and asking for feedback (from individuals not an 
official position of the ITU-T) on the PCE list before the end of last call 
(maybe IETF last call?) could not possibly be harmful, and would very probably 
be helpful.

But a formal request for review seems a bit excessive.



Cheers,

Adrian



-Original Message-

From: rtg-dir mailto:rtg-dir-boun...@ietf.org>> 
On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com

Sent: 19 November 2018 10:24

To: David Sinicrope 
mailto:david.sinicr...@ericsson.com>>; 
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org

Cc: Jonathan Hardwick 
mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>>; 
rtg-...@ietf.org; Yemin (Amy) 
mailto:amy.ye...@huawei.com>>; 
pce@ietf.org; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A 
mailto:db3...@att.com>>

Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: 
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions



Hi all,



Dave, thank you for this careful review. Though I'd by fine to liaise to 
ITU-T SG15 for information, I'm not that sure that our process requires 
liaising "for review": PCEP isn't a controversial technology which would need 
special treatment with respect to ITU-T. How strong do you feel on that?



Cyril and authors, please make sure to address Dave's comments.



Cheers,



Julien





On 18/11/2018 14:48, David Sinicrope wrote:

>

> Hello

>

> I have been se

Re: [Pce] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt

[Adrian Farrel]

Hi Haomian,

Thanks for continuing to move this work forward.

As I said back in October, I think the topic is in scope for the working group. 
I have read this recent version of the draft and think it is ready for adoption.

Although the previous adoption poll did not have a lot of support, no one spoke 
against, and there does appear to be a group of people willing to work on it - 
I see 6 names on the document and a further 3 who supported adoption.

If the chairs think that the draft can progress in the WG, that would be fine. 
If not, could they give a hint of what the authors should do?

Thanks,
Adrian

-Original Message-
From: Pce  On Behalf Of Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, 
Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)
Sent: 19 November 2018 09:48
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Fw: New Version Notification for 
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt

Dear WG, 

According to IETF 103 discussion, we update this work with a few changes in the 
text to better specify the motivation. We believe this work is technically 
ready for WG adoption, again. 

Please take a look and your comments are highly welcome, thank you. 

Best wishes,
Haomian (on behalf of all authors)

-邮件原件-
发件人: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] 
发送时间: 2018年11月19日 15:55
收件人: Victor Lopez ; Zhangxian (Xian) ; 
Oscar de Dios ; Oscar Gonzalez de Dios ; 
Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept) 

主题: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt
has been successfully submitted by Haomian Zheng and posted to the IETF 
repository.

Name:   draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing
Revision:   08
Title:  Extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to 
Support Resource Sharing-based Path Computation
Document date:  2018-11-19
Group:  Individual Submission
Pages:  14
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt
Status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing/
Htmlized:   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08
Htmlized:   
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing
Diff:   
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08

Abstract:
   Resource sharing in a network means two or more Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) use common piece(s) of resource along their paths. This can
   help save network resource and is useful in scenarios such as LSP
   recovery or when two LSPs do not need to be active at the same time.
   A Path Computation Element (PCE) is responsible for path computation
   with such requirement. The resource-sharing-based path computation
   with better efficiency can be achieved together with the association
   object in PCEP.

   This document extends the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
   in order to support resource sharing-based path computation, which
   is a special case in the association path computation.


  


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