[Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
Hi there I have reviewed this draft for the routing directorate as part of preparing it for IETF last call and IESG review. I was familiar with this document from the time that I chaired the PCE working group, but this was the first time I read it all the way through and paid attention to all details. I found it easy to read and understand. I think it is basically ready to go with a few small clarifications and nits, below. Cheers Jon Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 Reviewer: Jon Hardwick Review Date: 18 June 2019 IETF LC End Date: LC not started yet Intended Status: Standards Track Comments Section 3 is somewhat redundant IMO. 4.1 you should ideally provide a reference for how to do MBB signalling. 4.3 "Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed due to signaling churn, it can notify the PCE to temporarily suspend new LSP setup requests." I think this is covered by 5.7 as well as the PCE case, but you only refer to 5.7 for the latter. Please point to 5.7 for both cases. 5.1 Not a big deal, but I wonder if there is any practical reason to differentiate the final two bullets. 5.6 Why are AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES required (MUST) in the LSPA object of a PCRpt? If the LSP is PCE-initiated, then the PCE already knows what attributes were specified. If the LSP is PCC-Initiated, then the attributes are the PCC's business - the PCE can't change them (per 5.5) and I don't think the PCE even needs to know what they are. 7.2 Misuses RFC 2119 language to request an action from a working group. In other documents (when there is not already a draft in progress to do it) we have reworded this as "the YANG / MIB could be updated" etc. Nits 5: "Extensions to the PCEP" would sound better as "PCEP Extensions" 7: In RFC 6123 it says "The Manageability Considerations section SHOULD be placed immediately before the Security Considerations section in any Internet-Draft." - but here, it comes after. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
Support. Thanks, Alex On 6/4/19, 6:27 PM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" wrote: Hi WG, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04. The WG LC will run for 2 weeks, till 19th June 2019. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request/ Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft, please articulate your concern. If you support, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication. Further, explaining the importance of the work in your opinion is appreciated. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. Silence on the list, not so much :) Thanks, Dhruv, Julien, & Adrian ___ 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 LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
Support. Thanks, Mike. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:26 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-requ...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04 Hi WG, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04. The WG LC will run for 2 weeks, till 19th June 2019. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request/ Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft, please articulate your concern. If you support, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication. Further, explaining the importance of the work in your opinion is appreciated. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. Silence on the list, not so much :) Thanks, Dhruv, Julien, & Adrian ___ 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 LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
Support, this is an important extension in Redundant PCE deployments motivated by real use cases. Thanks, Mahendra -Original Message- From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 June 2019 10:18 To: Farrel Adrian Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-requ...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04 On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:16 PM Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > Picking up on Dhruv's request, I did a quick review as co-chair. It's > after the end of WG last call, but life is full of little > disappointments. > Thanks Adrian for your comments, they are still within the WG LC period. The WG LC ends tomorrow i.e. 19th June 2019! Regards, Dhruv ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
Support Regards Hooman From: Dhruv Dhody mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 21:56 Subject: WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04 To: mailto:pce@ietf.org>> Cc: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:h...@netflix.com>>, mailto:draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-requ...@ietf.org>> Hi WG, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04. The WG LC will run for 2 weeks, till 19th June 2019. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request/ Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft, please articulate your concern. If you support, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication. Further, explaining the importance of the work in your opinion is appreciated. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. Silence on the list, not so much :) Thanks, Dhruv, Julien, & Adrian ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] 答复: WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
Hi, Chairs, WG, I have reviewed this draft and believe it is ready for publication. This work is useful for enabling PCE and PCC to negotiate the control of LSPs. One minor comments on the text: In section 3, I was confused when first reading the last sentence on which flag is under discussion. Perhaps the following tweak helps remove the confusion. OLD: The flag has no meaning in the PCRpt and PCInitiate message and MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. New: This new C flag has no meaning in the PCRpt and PCInitiate message and MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. BTW, one of the reference of RFC8281 in section 4 is not correctly shown as hyperlink, please check the format. Thank you. Best wishes, Haomian -邮件原件- 发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Dhruv Dhody 发送时间: 2019年6月5日 0:26 收件人: pce@ietf.org 抄送: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-requ...@ietf.org 主题: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04 Hi WG, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04. The WG LC will run for 2 weeks, till 19th June 2019. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request/ Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft, please articulate your concern. If you support, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication. Further, explaining the importance of the work in your opinion is appreciated. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. Silence on the list, not so much :) Thanks, Dhruv, Julien, & Adrian ___ 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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10.txt
Thanks Dan. Deborah, good to go. Adrian -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of dan...@olddog.co.uk Sent: 17 June 2019 23:03 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10.txt Hi All, This revision of the I-D adjusts the number of document authors, from six to five. BR, Dan. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: 17 June 2019 22:58 To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-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 : Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE). Authors : Dhruv Dhody Young Lee Daniele Ceccarelli Jongyoon Shin Daniel King Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10.txt Pages : 21 Date: 2019-06-17 Abstract: A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path computation requests. This information may then be considered when computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The Path computation response from a PCE is helpful for the PCC to gracefully establish the computed LSP. The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture, provides an architecture to allow the optimum sequence of inter-connected domains to be selected, and network policy to be applied if applicable, via the use of a hierarchical relationship between PCEs. Combining the capabilities of Stateful PCE and the Hierarchical PCE would be advantageous. This document describes general considerations and use cases for the deployment of Stateful, and not Stateless, PCEs using the Hierarchical PCE architecture. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-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 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] Chair's pre-adoption review of draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association-07
Hi, Since you indicated that you thought your draft was ready for adoption by the working group, I have done a quick review. I realise that this is work in progress and does not need to be perfect or even complete at this stage, so I have tried to just pick out some points to tidy up the document so that an adoption poll will be a bit smoother. Thanks, Adrian The Table of Contents seems to be out of date. --- It would be really helpful if you could include an Implementation Status section consistent with the working group policy. If you have nothing to report then just simply report that you have nothing to report. --- Section 3 has An LSP MUST belong to a single VNAG. I think you probably mean... An LSP MUST NOT belong to more than one VNAG. --- The figure at the top of page 6 seems to be about explaining VNs, but you probably don't need to do that in this document. --- Section 4 The VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV MUST be included in VNAG object. I think the "VNAG object" is an Association Object with the Association Type set to "VNAG". --- Section 6 Could you think about the implications of the VN name being in clear text. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
Yes/Support+1. This draft is important for controller. Thanks for authors' contributions! Best Regards, Cheng -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 12:26 AM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-requ...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04 Hi WG, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04. The WG LC will run for 2 weeks, till 19th June 2019. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request/ Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft, please articulate your concern. If you support, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication. Further, explaining the importance of the work in your opinion is appreciated. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. Silence on the list, not so much :) Thanks, Dhruv, Julien, & Adrian ___ 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
