Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

[Greg Mirsky]

Hi Giuseppe,
I have a question about your statement:

But if nodes on the path do not support some capabilities, it is not a big
issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking and IOAM documents specify that nodes
that do not support a specific functionality will forward the packet
without any changes to the data fields and they are simply not considered
in the measurement.

Is the expectation that a packet marked with IOAM or AltMarking will be
forwarded by a non-supporting node applies to all IETF networking
technologies, for example in an MPLS network?

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 8:55 AM Giuseppe Fioccola  wrote:

> Hi Aijun,
>
> Thanks for the support.
>
> Regarding your question, I think we can clarify this point in the next
> version. If a PCE instantiates a path on the PCC with an IFIT capability
> enabled, it is supposed that there are at least two nodes (e.g. starting
> and ending node) which support it. But if nodes on the path do not support
> some capabilities, it is not a big issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking
> and IOAM documents specify that nodes that do not support a specific
> functionality will forward the packet without any changes to the data
> fields and they are simply not considered in the measurement.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Giuseppe
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wang...@chinatelecom.cn 
> *Sent:* Friday, July 1, 2022 11:26 AM
> *To:* 'Dhruv Dhody' ; pce@ietf.org
> *Cc:* draft-chen-pce-pcep-i...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* 答复: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06
>
>
>
> Hi, All:
>
>
>
> I support its adoption.
>
>
>
> One questions to the authors:
>
> Is it enough that only the headend support the defined iFIT capabilities?
> What’s the procedures when the nodes on the LSP/SR path doesn’t support
> the defined iFIT capabilities?
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> *发件人**:* Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com ]
> *发送时间:* 2022年6月24日 16:59
> *收件人:* pce@ietf.org
> *抄送:* draft-chen-pce-pcep-i...@ietf.org
> *主题:* WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06
>
>
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/
>
>
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons -
> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you
> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.
>
>
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & 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] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

[Chongfeng XIE]

Hi， all，
I support the adoption of this document. Thanks.

Chongfeng

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:59 AM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls! 

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
-- 

Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect 
Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
M 301 502-1347


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

[Pce] pce - Requested sessions have been scheduled for IETF 114

["IETF Secretariat"]

Dear Dhruv Dhody,

The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request. 


pce Session 1 (1:00 requested)
Wednesday, 27 July 2022, Session II 1330-1430
Room Name: Freedom E/F size: 150
-
pce Session 2 (1:00 requested)
Thursday, 28 July 2022, Session IV 1730-1830
Room Name: Freedom E/F size: 150
-


iCalendar: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/sessions/pce.ics

Request Information:


-
Working Group Name: Path Computation Element
Area Name: Routing Area
Session Requester: Dhruv Dhody


Number of Sessions: 2
Length of Session(s): 
Number of Attendees: 75
Conflicts to Avoid: 

   


People who must be present:
  Dhruv Dhody
  Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
  Julien Meuric

Resources Requested:

Special Requests:
  Do not schedule against RTG area BOF (if any).
It is OK to have a single 2-hr session (if required).
-


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

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

[Gyan Mishra]

Dear WG

I support adoption by PCE WG and would be willing to work on the draft.

I support IFIT PCE extension to carry the IFIT attributes for in-situ IOAM
on path telemetry.  I do agree this would be very useful for operators.

I was looking for a framework draft for IFIT and this is what I found.

I think a framework draft for IFIT solution should be addressed in the
draft in the introduction.

I noticed that there are a number of ifit related drafts across many WGs
with a variety of authors and it appears no common author across all the
documents.

Is there an IFIT framework draft of the overall IFIT architecture and goals?

IFIT is a component of IPPM IOAM but I think it should have its own
framework draft.

I did find this IFIT framework draft which I don’t see as informational
reference in this document.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/

Of all the IFIT related drafts I do see one adopted.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit/


Kind Regards

Gyan

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:59 AM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons -
> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you
> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
-- 



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *



*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

[Giuseppe Fioccola]

Hi Aijun,
Thanks for the support.
Regarding your question, I think we can clarify this point in the next version. 
If a PCE instantiates a path on the PCC with an IFIT capability enabled, it is 
supposed that there are at least two nodes (e.g. starting and ending node) 
which support it. But if nodes on the path do not support some capabilities, it 
is not a big issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking and IOAM documents specify 
that nodes that do not support a specific functionality will forward the packet 
without any changes to the data fields and they are simply not considered in 
the measurement.

Regards,

Giuseppe


From: wang...@chinatelecom.cn 
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 11:26 AM
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' ; pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-chen-pce-pcep-i...@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Hi, All:

I support its adoption.

One questions to the authors:
Is it enough that only the headend support the defined iFIT capabilities? 
What’s the procedures when the nodes on the LSP/SR path doesn’t support the 
defined iFIT capabilities?

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

发件人: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com]
发送时间: 2022年6月24日 16:59
收件人: pce@ietf.org
抄送: draft-chen-pce-pcep-i...@ietf.org
主题: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] 答复: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, All:

 

I support its adoption.

 

One questions to the authors: 

Is it enough that only the headend support the defined iFIT capabilities? 
What’s the procedures when the nodes on the LSP/SR path doesn’t support the 
defined iFIT capabilities?

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com] 
发送时间: 2022年6月24日 16:59
收件人: pce@ietf.org
抄送: draft-chen-pce-pcep-i...@ietf.org
主题: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

 

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/

 

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.

 

Please be more vocal during WG polls! 

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

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