[Pce] 答复: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt
Hi, Dhruv, Julien, Adrian, Thank you all for the guidance on this work. I will work on these comments and provide an update within this month. Best wishes, Haomian -邮件原件- 发件人: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2018年12月14日 13:51 收件人: Julien Meuric 抄送: Farrel Adrian ; pce@ietf.org; Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept) 主题: Re: [Pce] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt Hi All, I suggested to Haomian to describe the H-PCE(/ACTN) usecase as well where if child PCE does sticky resource [1] handling, the resources could be shared during path computation requests for various BN-In(i) to BN-Out(j) pairs (finaly Parent PCE would select only one of them). This would further highlight the applicability and usage of this feature. Thanks! Dhruv [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7399#section-13 On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 9:34 PM wrote: > > Hi again, > > Thank you Adrian for sharing your support on this I-D. We agree that > no one expressed disagreement on that work. It therefore leaves this > I-D in a draw situation: it missed an opportunity to get adopted, but > there is no reason to exclude another poll to distinguish between bad > poll timing and lack of support. > I suggest the authors to keep on working on the document, including > the list as much as possible and we will eventually consider a 2nd > adoption poll. > > Cheers, > > Julien > > > On 27/11/2018 21:35, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > 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 > > > > 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
Re: [Pce] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt
Hi All, I suggested to Haomian to describe the H-PCE(/ACTN) usecase as well where if child PCE does sticky resource [1] handling, the resources could be shared during path computation requests for various BN-In(i) to BN-Out(j) pairs (finaly Parent PCE would select only one of them). This would further highlight the applicability and usage of this feature. Thanks! Dhruv [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7399#section-13 On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 9:34 PM wrote: > > Hi again, > > Thank you Adrian for sharing your support on this I-D. We agree that no > one expressed disagreement on that work. It therefore leaves this I-D in > a draw situation: it missed an opportunity to get adopted, but there is > no reason to exclude another poll to distinguish between bad poll timing > and lack of support. > I suggest the authors to keep on working on the document, including the > list as much as possible and we will eventually consider a 2nd adoption > poll. > > Cheers, > > Julien > > > On 27/11/2018 21:35, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > _ > > Ce message et ses pi
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Hi Julien, The document underwent significant changes along its history, we limited its scope and polished the content based on feedback and suggestions. The authors believe that this I-D is ready to be shipped, looking forward to the comments from the WG. Thanks! Dhruv -- Dhruv Dhody Lead Architect Network Business Line Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560066 Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext 71583 II Email: dhruv.dh...@huawei.com This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric > Sent: 13 December 2018 19:00 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth > > Hi all, > > This e-mail starts a 3-week PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful- > pce-auto-bandwidth-08. Please share your reviews and comments using the > mailing list by Friday January 5, 2019. > > Thank you, > > 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] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Support for WG adoption. I provided higher level comments to the -00 version, which were incorporated. There is still work to be done, that can be undertaken post WG adoption (some listed below). Regards, Dhruv To Do - Introduction should be section 1 - Remove reference to BANDWIDTH object in section 3 - Reference to (or rather re-use of Unreserved Bandwidth well defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.5.8) in section 2.1 - Reference to (or rather re-use of Residual Bandwidth well defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7471#section-4.5.3) in section 2.2 - We can only define 'path' level and reuse 'link' level description from IGP - IDNITs - https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01.txt - I am listed as co-author, may be move me to acknowledgement/contributor -- Dhruv Dhody Lead Architect Network Business Line Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560066 Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext 71583 II Email: dhruv.dh...@huawei.com This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric > Sent: 13 December 2018 18:35 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw > > Dear WG, > > We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during > past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked > quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from > the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as > a starting point for a PCE work item? > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) > > Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. > > Thanks > > Julien > > > P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an > adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors > focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. > > ___ > 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] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Apart from disclosure #2996, I am not aware of any other IPR that applies to this draft! Regards, Udayasree On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:28 AM wrote: > Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth, > > 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-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth beyond the one with the ID > 2996. If so, please indicate 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 other IPR that applies, please reply saying > "Appart from disclosure #2996, I am not aware of any other IPR that > applies to this draft". > > A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed with > publication request. > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > > _ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > ___ > 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 Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Hi Julien, WG, I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication. Thanks, Rakesh (as a co-author). On 2018-12-13, 8:29 AM, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote: Hi all, This e-mail starts a 3-week PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-08. Please share your reviews and comments using the mailing list by Friday January 5, 2019. Thank you, 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] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Hi Julien, Apart from the disclosure #2996 below, I am not aware of any other IPR that applies to this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2996/ Thanks, Rakesh > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > julien.meu...@orange.com > Sent: 13 December 2018 21:58 > To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwi...@ietf.org > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth > > Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth, > > 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-stateful-pce-auto- > bandwidth beyond the one with the ID 2996. If so, please indicate 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 other IPR that > applies, please reply saying "Appart from disclosure #2996, I am not aware > of any other IPR that applies to this draft". > > A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed with > publication request. > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > __ > ___ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par > erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les > pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, > used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > ___ > 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] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Apart from disclosure #2996, I am not aware of any other IPR that applies to this draft! Regards, Dhruv -- Dhruv Dhody Lead Architect Network Business Line Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560066 Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext 71583 II Email: dhruv.dh...@huawei.com This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > julien.meu...@orange.com > Sent: 13 December 2018 21:58 > To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwi...@ietf.org > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth > > Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth, > > 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-stateful-pce-auto- > bandwidth beyond the one with the ID 2996. If so, please indicate 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 other IPR that > applies, please reply saying "Appart from disclosure #2996, I am not aware > of any other IPR that applies to this draft". > > A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed with > publication request. > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > __ > ___ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par > erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les > pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, > used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > ___ > 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
[Pce] Last Call: (PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment' 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 2018-12-27. 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 This document provides the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical path computation. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/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
[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-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 : PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment Authors : Young Lee Ramon Casellas Filename: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10.txt Pages : 25 Date: 2018-12-13 Abstract: This document provides the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical path computation. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-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
[Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth, 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-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth beyond the one with the ID 2996. If so, please indicate 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 other IPR that applies, please reply saying "Appart from disclosure #2996, I am not aware of any other IPR that applies to this draft". A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed with publication request. Thanks, Julien _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-08.txt
Hi again, Thank you Adrian for sharing your support on this I-D. We agree that no one expressed disagreement on that work. It therefore leaves this I-D in a draw situation: it missed an opportunity to get adopted, but there is no reason to exclude another poll to distinguish between bad poll timing and lack of support. I suggest the authors to keep on working on the document, including the list as much as possible and we will eventually consider a 2nd adoption poll. Cheers, Julien On 27/11/2018 21:35, Adrian Farrel wrote: > 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 > > 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 _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Hi, Yes, Support. Thanks. Young (co-author) -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 7:05 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. ___ 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] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07.txt
Hi All, Please note below the significantly reworked version of draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability. I did try to find someone offline to review the I-D who has not worked on the I-D, but alas I had no takers - clearly the reward was not sufficient. If someone in the WG can take a look I am sure all the authors of the I-D, and PCE Chairs, would be eternally grateful. There is a significant time gap between this version and the prior version of the I-D, and there was a quite a bit of reworking required. This included general readability as we had at least 5 versions of English being used 😊 - and also duplication of concepts, which has now been reduced or at least focused within their specific sub-sections. Scanning the document again today, I think it needs some further text on how PCE relationships (including trust models) might managed. BR, Dan and the authors. -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: 13 December 2018 14:03 To: Daniel King ; Haomian Zheng Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07.txt has been successfully submitted by Daniel King and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability Revision: 07 Title: Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering Document date: 2018-12-13 Group: pce Pages: 24 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used for computing services that traverse multi-area and multi-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) networks. This document examines the applicability of the PCE architecture, protocols, and protocol extensions for computing multi-area and multi-AS paths in MPLS and GMPLS networks. 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-inter-area-as-applicability-07.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 : Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering Authors : Daniel King Haomian Zheng Filename: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07.txt Pages : 24 Date: 2018-12-13 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used for computing services that traverse multi-area and multi-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) networks. This document examines the applicability of the PCE architecture, protocols, and protocol extensions for computing multi-area and multi-AS paths in MPLS and GMPLS networks. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07 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] Visibility into the Chairs' Queue of Work
I just looked at the wiki. That's totally wonderful. Thanks for making this happen so quickly. Best, Adrian -Original Message- From: Julien Meuric Sent: 13 December 2018 12:41 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: Visibility into the Chairs' Queue of Work Hi Adrian, Thank you for the buttkick, this is sometimes useful, especially when (temporarily) transitioning from a couple of chairs kicking each other to a single one struggling at self-kicking. This is another opportunity to greet Jon again for his valuable work, both on stage and behind the scene. :-) Good news: our secretary agrees to implement your proposal on the WG's wiki. Knowing how proactive Dhruv can be, please find the resulting page here: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki About draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing (which isn't really the last adoption poll), thanks for the reminder. I've synchronized with Jon and will follow-up on the corresponding thread. Last but not least, thank you for the thorough reviews you've recently shared on the WG list: this is highly valuable to make I-Ds ready to progress and is clearly helpful to successfully go through the further steps in the process. Even if not thanked each time, your work is always appreciated. Cheers, Julien On 13/12/2018 10:33, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Chairs, > > I'm trying to think of ways that the WG participants can get a bet view of > what process work is pending and when to expect it. > > At each IETF meeting you present a useful slide showing the "WG documents at > or near last call" > > For example, at IETF 103 you showed > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-pce-1-administ > rivia-and-wg-status-00.pdf which indicates that we had four documents > pending shepherd review. > - inter-area-as-applicability > - stateful-pce-p2mp > - hierarchy-extensions > - association-group > .and four documents in the queue for WG last call > - stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth > - applicability-actn > - pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls > - stateful-hpce > > This list is helpful because those of us who want to see work move along can > get in early and do our "last call reviews" even before last call is > started. > > Looking at the datatracker and the mailing list, I see that: > - one draft expired ages ago > - one draft has been waiting for the shepherd for 6 weeks > - one has been waiting for the shepherd for only 1 week (seems reasonable > :-) > - one has been waiting for the shepherd for 12 weeks or more > I also see that none of the four WG last calls has been started. > > Now, I really don't want to be pissy here: I appreciate the work that the > chairs' do and I know that no one ever got rich being a WG chair. But I > wonder whether we could unstick this a bit and move the drafts along. > > Maybe it would help to put this list on the WG wiki so that we can see in a > little bit more detail what the next steps are and who we should be > prodding. If there's a reason why a document is hung, then it would be a > good place to put a note so that we can see. It would also help set our > expectations with regard to ordered lists and timing. > > Alternatively, some additional details could easily be put in the tracker > using the sub-states, tags, and history comments. That wouldn't be as easy > to see the whole list and understand the ordering challenges, but it would > keep all the information in one place. > > > At the same time, I'm trying to work out which documents are queued for > consideration for WG adoption. Now, I know that we can all work on drafts at > any time and don't have to wait for them to be adopted before considering > them seriously, but it is a bit confusing not being able to tell which > documents are waiting for process and when they are likely to be considered. > > I looked in the datatracker and I don't see any use of the sub-states/tags > that can indicate "Candidate for WG Adoption". Do the chairs have a list of > documents that they are considering for adoption? Sharing that list (such as > on the wiki) would help save the authors from pestering the chairs at every > opportunity, and would also set expectations for the working group with > regard to timing and ordering. The last adoption poll I can see on the list > ended on October 26th (with the chairs calling "no conclusion") - was that > really the only document ready for consideration? > > > I think this could be made to a go a lot more smoothly with greater > visibility into the queue, and a wiki page would be cheap and easy to > maintain. I bet the WG secretary would be willing to do this (Hi, Dhruv :-) > but if not, I can set it up and the chairs can add the data. > > Thanks for your consideration. > > Best, > Adrian > -- > Fairy tales from North Wales brought to you for Christmas > https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ > Available from your favourite online bookseller. > Or contact me to receive a signed copy by mail. >
[Pce] The PCE WG has placed draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
The PCE WG has placed draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Julien Meuric) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Hi all, This e-mail starts a 3-week PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-08. Please share your reviews and comments using the mailing list by Friday January 5, 2019. Thank you, Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Hi Julien, Thanks for starting this. I believe the feedbacks collected after the first discussions significantly improved the scope of the draft, making it narrow, simple and straight forward. This is a minor extension to PCEP that allows a better exchange of path computation results, particularly in an hierarchical environment. Yes, I would be happy to see this work proceeding. Thanks, Daniele -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: den 13 december 2018 14:05 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Visibility into the Chairs' Queue of Work
Hi Adrian, Thank you for the buttkick, this is sometimes useful, especially when (temporarily) transitioning from a couple of chairs kicking each other to a single one struggling at self-kicking. This is another opportunity to greet Jon again for his valuable work, both on stage and behind the scene. :-) Good news: our secretary agrees to implement your proposal on the WG's wiki. Knowing how proactive Dhruv can be, please find the resulting page here: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki About draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing (which isn't really the last adoption poll), thanks for the reminder. I've synchronized with Jon and will follow-up on the corresponding thread. Last but not least, thank you for the thorough reviews you've recently shared on the WG list: this is highly valuable to make I-Ds ready to progress and is clearly helpful to successfully go through the further steps in the process. Even if not thanked each time, your work is always appreciated. Cheers, Julien On 13/12/2018 10:33, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Chairs, > > I'm trying to think of ways that the WG participants can get a bet view of > what process work is pending and when to expect it. > > At each IETF meeting you present a useful slide showing the "WG documents at > or near last call" > > For example, at IETF 103 you showed > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-pce-1-administ > rivia-and-wg-status-00.pdf which indicates that we had four documents > pending shepherd review. > - inter-area-as-applicability > - stateful-pce-p2mp > - hierarchy-extensions > - association-group > .and four documents in the queue for WG last call > - stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth > - applicability-actn > - pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls > - stateful-hpce > > This list is helpful because those of us who want to see work move along can > get in early and do our "last call reviews" even before last call is > started. > > Looking at the datatracker and the mailing list, I see that: > - one draft expired ages ago > - one draft has been waiting for the shepherd for 6 weeks > - one has been waiting for the shepherd for only 1 week (seems reasonable > :-) > - one has been waiting for the shepherd for 12 weeks or more > I also see that none of the four WG last calls has been started. > > Now, I really don't want to be pissy here: I appreciate the work that the > chairs' do and I know that no one ever got rich being a WG chair. But I > wonder whether we could unstick this a bit and move the drafts along. > > Maybe it would help to put this list on the WG wiki so that we can see in a > little bit more detail what the next steps are and who we should be > prodding. If there's a reason why a document is hung, then it would be a > good place to put a note so that we can see. It would also help set our > expectations with regard to ordered lists and timing. > > Alternatively, some additional details could easily be put in the tracker > using the sub-states, tags, and history comments. That wouldn't be as easy > to see the whole list and understand the ordering challenges, but it would > keep all the information in one place. > > > At the same time, I'm trying to work out which documents are queued for > consideration for WG adoption. Now, I know that we can all work on drafts at > any time and don't have to wait for them to be adopted before considering > them seriously, but it is a bit confusing not being able to tell which > documents are waiting for process and when they are likely to be considered. > > I looked in the datatracker and I don't see any use of the sub-states/tags > that can indicate "Candidate for WG Adoption". Do the chairs have a list of > documents that they are considering for adoption? Sharing that list (such as > on the wiki) would help save the authors from pestering the chairs at every > opportunity, and would also set expectations for the working group with > regard to timing and ordering. The last adoption poll I can see on the list > ended on October 26th (with the chairs calling "no conclusion") - was that > really the only document ready for consideration? > > > I think this could be made to a go a lot more smoothly with greater > visibility into the queue, and a wiki page would be cheap and easy to > maintain. I bet the WG secretary would be willing to do this (Hi, Dhruv :-) > but if not, I can set it up and the chairs can add the data. > > Thanks for your consideration. > > Best, > Adrian > -- > Fairy tales from North Wales brought to you for Christmas > https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ > Available from your favourite online bookseller. > Or contact me to receive a signed copy by mail. > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Visibility into the Chairs' Queue of Work
Hi Chairs, I'm trying to think of ways that the WG participants can get a bet view of what process work is pending and when to expect it. At each IETF meeting you present a useful slide showing the "WG documents at or near last call" For example, at IETF 103 you showed https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-pce-1-administ rivia-and-wg-status-00.pdf which indicates that we had four documents pending shepherd review. - inter-area-as-applicability - stateful-pce-p2mp - hierarchy-extensions - association-group ..and four documents in the queue for WG last call - stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth - applicability-actn - pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls - stateful-hpce This list is helpful because those of us who want to see work move along can get in early and do our "last call reviews" even before last call is started. Looking at the datatracker and the mailing list, I see that: - one draft expired ages ago - one draft has been waiting for the shepherd for 6 weeks - one has been waiting for the shepherd for only 1 week (seems reasonable :-) - one has been waiting for the shepherd for 12 weeks or more I also see that none of the four WG last calls has been started. Now, I really don't want to be pissy here: I appreciate the work that the chairs' do and I know that no one ever got rich being a WG chair. But I wonder whether we could unstick this a bit and move the drafts along. Maybe it would help to put this list on the WG wiki so that we can see in a little bit more detail what the next steps are and who we should be prodding. If there's a reason why a document is hung, then it would be a good place to put a note so that we can see. It would also help set our expectations with regard to ordered lists and timing. Alternatively, some additional details could easily be put in the tracker using the sub-states, tags, and history comments. That wouldn't be as easy to see the whole list and understand the ordering challenges, but it would keep all the information in one place. At the same time, I'm trying to work out which documents are queued for consideration for WG adoption. Now, I know that we can all work on drafts at any time and don't have to wait for them to be adopted before considering them seriously, but it is a bit confusing not being able to tell which documents are waiting for process and when they are likely to be considered. I looked in the datatracker and I don't see any use of the sub-states/tags that can indicate "Candidate for WG Adoption". Do the chairs have a list of documents that they are considering for adoption? Sharing that list (such as on the wiki) would help save the authors from pestering the chairs at every opportunity, and would also set expectations for the working group with regard to timing and ordering. The last adoption poll I can see on the list ended on October 26th (with the chairs calling "no conclusion") - was that really the only document ready for consideration? I think this could be made to a go a lot more smoothly with greater visibility into the queue, and a wiki page would be cheap and easy to maintain. I bet the WG secretary would be willing to do this (Hi, Dhruv :-) but if not, I can set it up and the chairs can add the data. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Adrian -- Fairy tales from North Wales brought to you for Christmas https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ Available from your favourite online bookseller. Or contact me to receive a signed copy by mail. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
