Re: [Pce] Regarding IPR on draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid-03

[Ramon Casellas]

Hi all

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"

Best regards

Ramon


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

[Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: No Objection

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-wson-rwa-ext/



--
COMMENT:
--

I support Benjamin's DISCUSS (and thank him for saving me some typing :-) )

IDNits complains about some citations without matching references. Please check.

The "authors" section does not match the first page. Should some of those be
listed as "contributors"?


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

Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11

[Alissa Cooper]

Elwyn, thanks for your reviews. Young, thank you for your responses. I entered 
a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Leeyoung  wrote:
> 
> Hi Elwyn,
> 
> Thanks for further review and confirming the acceptance of the most of the 
> edits while pointing out a few items to be corrected. I will update those 
> during the IESG review. 
> 
> Best regards,
> Young
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elw...@dial.pipex.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 2:13 PM
> To: gen-...@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review 
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the 
> IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD 
> before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-117
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2019-01-28
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-27
> IESG Telechat date: 2019-02-07
> 
> Summary:
> Ready.  There are a couple of trivial nits remaining. Otherwise, thanks very 
> much for addressing my last call comments.
> 
> Major issues:
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> None.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> S3: The expansion of 3R needs to be at first occurrence. This is one 
> paragraph earlier than the added expansion in v11.
> 
> S3, next to last para: need to expand FEC.
> 
> S4.1, para 5: s/to the allocation/used for the allocation/
> 
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> gen-...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

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

Re: [Pce] changes in draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

[Jeff Tantsura]

Dear PCE,

The authors have published updated version that should address comments 
received on the list

Summary of Changes:
- Encoding changes to the TLV
- Support for SRv6 Binding Type
- Reference to PCECC based binding SID allocation (and appendix text moved to 
the PCECC I-D)

We believe the draft is ready for wg adoption and would like to request the 
chairs to start the adoption call.
Thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff

> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 10:19 AM
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Fwd: PCE-BSID Question to the List
>
> Dear PCE,
>
> Following our presentation in Bangkok, 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-pce-23-binding-segment-00.pdf
>
> The authors would like to ask the WG the following:
>
>
> (1) Do we link the Binding SID to the PCEP SR capability? Currently we
> can assign BSID for RSVP-TE LSP as well.
>
> [Zhibo]Yes, it is important, I could think of few use cases-> “domain 
> stitching”,” solving MSD limits” and “interworking b/w MPLS and SRv6 domains” 
> by PCE
>
>
> (2) Is WG happy with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV format?
>
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Type | Length |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Binding Type (BT) | Binding Value |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> ~ Binding Value (continued) (variable length) ~
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> [Zhibo] I prefer the length of BT field is 8 bits, and adding 24 reserved 
> bits for future features, such as flag or something else.
>
>    0   1   2   3
>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   | Type  | Length    |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |  BT   | reserved  |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   ~    Binding Value (variable length)    ~
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> This encoding of BSID is similar to BGP 
> [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05#section-2.4.2]
>  that works for both SR-MPLS and SRv6.
> When length is 8, then the binding Value is a MPLS label, when length is 20, 
> the binding value is a SRv6 SID.
>
>
> Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
>
> (3) Is there a use case for binding value as “index” in SRGB/SRLB?
> [Zhibo] I think there is no use case for binding value as “index” in SRLB, 
> cause BSID may not be a global label.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins]

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: No Objection

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-wson-rwa-ext/



--
COMMENT:
--

Thank you for the very helpful Section 3.


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

[Pce] Adoption poll for draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid

[Adrian Farrel]

Hi WG,

Please read and review draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid-03 and send your comments
to the mailing list.

Should we adopt it? Why / why not?

What needs to be fixed before/after adoption?

Is this a draft you would be willing to work on? Do you plan to implement?

This poll will run until 20th February.

Thanks,
PCE Chairs

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

[Pce] Regarding IPR on draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid-03

[Adrian Farrel]

Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of preparation for WG Adoption:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see
RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware
of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next stage until
a response has been received from each author and listed contributor. NOTE:
THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed as
an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF
IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of
others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any
contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more
information, please see the RFCs listed above and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
PCE WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.

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

[Pce] The PCE WG has placed draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

[IETF Secretariat]

The PCE WG has placed draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Adrian Farrel)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid/

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

[Pce] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov]

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: No Objection

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-wson-rwa-ext/



--
COMMENT:
--

Benjamin's DISCUSS is a superset of issues I spotted, so I am agreeing with it.

In Section 4.1:

 . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for
details.

Is TLV value 32 bit or the whole TLV? (This is the same issue as raised by 
Benjamin)

In Section 4.3:

   o  Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction
   is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
   field.

Is the type field extensible?

   See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section
   4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively.

8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV

   As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
   from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value DescriptionReference
   -
   TBD5  Optical Interface  [This.I-D]
 Class List

I don't see TBD5 referenced anywhere else in the document.

8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV

   As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
   the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from
   the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
   indicators).

   Value DescriptionReference
   -
   TBD6  Client Signal Information  [This.I-D]

I don't see TBD6 referenced anywhere else in the document either.


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

[Pce] Updated PCECC WG I-D and PCECC-SR I-D for review

[Mahendra Singh Negi]

Hi WG,



We have made an update to the PCECC WG I-D as well as to the PCECC-SR I-D.



I-D: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-01

Diff: 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-01



I-D: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-04

Diff: 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-04



The changes are: -

- Authorship changes

- Support for PCC based allocation i.e. PCC controlled label space where the 
PCECC instruct PCC to allocate label/SID and report back to the PCECC.

- Support for Binding label/SID allocation via PCECC



Kindly review and provide comments!



Thanks,

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

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-03.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   : Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) 
to request and obtain control of a LSP
Authors : Aswatnarayan Raghuram
  Al Goddard
  Chaitanya Yadlapalli
  Jay Karthik
  Siva Sivabalan
  Jon Parker
  Mahendra Singh Negi
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-03.txt
Pages   : 10
Date: 2019-02-05

Abstract:
   The stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol
   (PCEP) extensions provide stateful control of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP)
   via PCEP, for a model where a Path Computation Client (PCC) delegates
   control over one or more locally configured LSPs to a stateful PCE.
   There are use-cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to request and
   obtain control of one or more LSPs from a PCC.  This document
   describes a simple extension to stateful PCEP to achieve such an
   objective.



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

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-03
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-03


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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-01.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   : PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE 
as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs
Authors : Quintin Zhao
  Zhenbin Li
  Mahendra Singh Negi
  Chao Zhou
Filename: 
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-01.txt
Pages   : 33
Date: 2019-02-05

Abstract:
   The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core component of Software-
   Defined Networking (SDN) systems.  It can compute optimal paths for
   traffic across a network and can also update the paths to reflect
   changes in the network or traffic demands.

   PCE was developed to derive paths for MPLS Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs), which are supplied to the head end of the LSP using the Path
   Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).  But SDN has a
   broader applicability than signaled (G)MPLS traffic-engineered (TE)
   networks, and the PCE may be used to determine paths in a range of
   use cases.  PCEP has been proposed as a control protocol for use in
   these environments to allow the PCE to be fully enabled as a central
   controller.

   A PCE-based central controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of
   a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and
   without necessarily completely replacing it.  Thus, the LSP can be
   calculated/setup/initiated and the label forwarding entries can also
   be downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network
   devices along the path while leveraging the existing PCE technologies
   as much as possible.

   This document specifies the procedures and PCEP protocol extensions
   for using the PCE as the central controller.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-01


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