Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread Stefano Previdi 
Hi, 

I support the adoption of this draft since it's part of the whole SRv6 work.

Thanks.
s.

> -Original Message-
> From: Pce   On 
> Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com 
> Sent: 16 January 2023 18:00
> To: pce@ietf.org 
> Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of 
> draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This e-mail starts an adoption poll for 
> draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you 
> consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item?
> 
> Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the 
> WG should not adopt it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Julien

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

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread Adrian Farrel 
Hi,

Tl;dr  I support the adoption of this draft.

As a co-author of RFC 8283, I take an interest in this work and the
wider applicability of PCECC. I've also been interested in how SID
allocation is coordinated, and this seems like a reasonable solution.

Given that we have procedures and protocol extensions for PCECC with
SR-MPLS, it seems pragmatic to also have them for SRv6.

Some comments and nits below, none of which needs to be actioned before
adoption.

Best,
Adrian

===

Abstract

Suggest a paragraph break before "This document"

---

Abstract

You nicely introduce PCE and PCECC, but don't introduce SR. There is,
perhaps, a sentence or two in the Introduction you could borrow...


   Segment Routing (SR) technology leverages the source routing and
   tunneling paradigms.  Each path is specified as a set of "segments" 
   encoded in the header of each packet as a list of Segment Identifiers
   (SIDs).

You'd then tidy up the subsequent text since there is no need to 
expand the abbreviations twice.

---

Abstract

s/SDN and/SDN/
s/in the for /in the/

---

1.

Although PCEP is expanded in the Abstract, you need to expand it on
first use in the main body of text.

---

1.

s/introduction to SR/introduction to the SR/
a/[RFC8665] ,/[RFC8665],/

---

1.
OLD
   [RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
NEW
   [RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
   (PCECC)
END

---

1.

   It relies on a
   series of forwarding instructions being placed in the header of a
   packet.  The list of segments forming the path is called the Segment
   List and is encoded in the packet header.

You say "in the packet header" twice.

---

1.

   PCECC may further use PCEP for SR SID (Segment Identifier) allocation
   and distribution to all the SR nodes with some benefits.  

Hmmm. Not sure PCEP is use for allocation. Maybe it is open for 
interpretation, but possibly...

   The PCECC may perform centralized allocation of SR Segment 
   Identifiers (SIDs) and use PCEP to distribute them to the SR nodes.

---

1.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] specifies the
   procedures and PCEP extensions when a PCE-based controller is also
   responsible for configuring the forwarding actions on the routers
   (SR-MPLS SID distribution), in addition to computing the paths for
   packet flows in a segment routing network and telling the edge
   routers what instructions to attach to packets as they enter the
   network.  This document extends this to include SRv6 SID distribution
   as well.

Big question first. I know the history that led us to have one I-D for
SR-MPLS and one for SRv6. The question is whether we still need to have
that, or we should adopt this document and them move for a merger so 
that the is just one draft for PCECC-SR. I assume that the philosophy of
the PCEP extensions are the same, and that it is just the encoding of
SIDs that differs. (See also the end of Section 3.)

And then, a rewrite for clarity...

   A PCE-based central controller may be responsible for computing the 
   paths for packet flows in an MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) network
   and for telling the edge routers what instructions to attach to
   packets as they enter the network.  [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-
   controller-sr] specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions when a
   PCE-based controller is additionally responsible for configuring the
   forwarding actions on routers in an SR-MPLS network (i.e., for SR-
   MPLS SID distribution).  This document extends those procedures to
   include SRv6 SID distribution as well.

---

2.

s/in the document/in/

---

3.

   An
   ingress node of an SR-TE path appends all outgoing packets with a
   list of MPLS labels (SIDs).

I don't think "append" is quite the right word. It has implications of
"attach to the end of". Perhaps...

   An
   ingress node of an SR-TE path includes a list of MPLS labels (SIDs)
   in all outgoing packets.

---

3.

OLD
   The SR is applied to IPv6 data plane using SRH.
NEW
   SR is applied to the IPv6 data plane using the SRH.
END

---

3.

s/paths may not follow IGP SPT/paths might not follow the IGP SPT/
s/specify the SRv6-ERO/specifies the SRv6-ERO/
s/and assume/and assuming/
s/Further Section 3/Further, Section 3/
s/describe the implications/describes the implications/

---

3.

   The operator needs to evaluate the advantages offered by PCECC
   against the operational and scalability needs of the PCECC.

Maybe add a forward pointer to Section 9.6?

---

3.

OLD
   As per [RFC8283], PCECC can allocate and provision the node/prefix/
   adjacency label (SID) via PCEP.
NEW
   As per [RFC8283], the PCECC can allocate the node/prefix/adjacency 
   label (SID) and provision them via PCEP.
END

---

4.

s/between the PCE to the PCC/between the PCE and the PCC/

---

5.2

The material in this section is all good, but I think the flow is wrong.
Perhaps...

OLD
   This document uses the same

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread zhenlin....@hotmail.com 
Hi Chair and WG,

This is zhenlin Tan from China Telecom.  I support the WG adoption of this 
work. This document specifies useful procedures and PCEP extensions when a 
PCE-based controller is also responsible for computing the paths in the SRv6 
network.



Zhenlin Tan  
China Telecom Research Institute,Guangzhou,China
Work Email: tan...@chinatelecom.cn
Mobile: (86)15603005002
 
From: julien.meu...@orange.com
Date: 2023-01-17 02:00
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
Hi all,
 
This e-mail starts an adoption poll for
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you
consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item?
 
Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the
WG should not adopt it.
 
Thanks,
 
Julien
 
 
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6/
 
 
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) 
Hi Julien and WG,

This document specifies PCEP extension for SRv6 with PCECC.
Support WG adoption as co-author.

Best
Xuesong

> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> julien.meu...@orange.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:00 AM
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of
> draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This e-mail starts an adoption poll for
> draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you consider 
> this
> I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item?
> 
> Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the WG 
> should
> not adopt it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller
> -srv6/
> 

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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread Lizhenbin 

Hi All,



I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in 
accordance with IETF IPR rules.



Best Regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)






李振斌 Li Zhenbin
Mobile: +86-13651017745/+968-91797068
Email: lizhen...@huawei.com

发件人：Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) 
收件人：Hariharan Ananthakrishnan ;Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) 
;Mahend Negi ;Lizhenbin 

抄 送：pce 
时 间：2023-01-17 17:15:13
主 题：RE: IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

Hi WG,

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in 
accordance with IETF IPR rules.

Best
Xuesong

From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan [mailto:h...@netflix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:23 PM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) ; Gengxuesong (Geng 
Xuesong) ; Mahend Negi ; 
Lizhenbin 
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6


Hi Authors,

In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all

authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance

with IETF IPR rules.

Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed

in accordance with IETF IPR rules.



I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been

disclosed to the IETF.



I am aware of IPR applicable to this draft, but that has not yet been

disclosed to the IETF. I will work to ensure that it will be disclosed in a

timely manner.



Thanks,

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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) 
Hi Hari,


I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.

Thank you!

Best Regards,
Shuping

From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan [mailto:h...@netflix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:23 PM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) ; Gengxuesong (Geng 
Xuesong) ; Mahend Negi ; 
Lizhenbin 
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6


Hi Authors,

In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all

authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance

with IETF IPR rules.

Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed

in accordance with IETF IPR rules.



I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been

disclosed to the IETF.



I am aware of IPR applicable to this draft, but that has not yet been

disclosed to the IETF. I will work to ensure that it will be disclosed in a

timely manner.



Thanks,

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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) 
Hi WG,

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in 
accordance with IETF IPR rules.

Best
Xuesong

From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan [mailto:h...@netflix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:23 PM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) ; Gengxuesong (Geng 
Xuesong) ; Mahend Negi ; 
Lizhenbin 
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6


Hi Authors,

In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all

authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance

with IETF IPR rules.

Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:

I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed

in accordance with IETF IPR rules.



I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been

disclosed to the IETF.



I am aware of IPR applicable to this draft, but that has not yet been

disclosed to the IETF. I will work to ensure that it will be disclosed in a

timely manner.



Thanks,

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

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

2023-01-17 Thread Liang Felix 
Dear Chairs

How are you doing?

This is Felix from China Telecom.

From my own perspective, I think this document has specified useful procedures 
and PCEP extensions when a PCE-based controller is also responsible for 
computing the explicit forwarding paths in the SRv6 network.
So I support the WG adoption of this work.


___ 
Best Regards! 
梁筱斌 Felix Liang 
IP Network Architect 

Network Technology Research Dept, Research Institute of China Telecom Co., Ltd 
109 West Zhongshan Avenue, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510630, CN 
O: +86 20 3863 9179 
C: +86 189 2956 4809 
F: +86 20 3863 9572 

Email: liang...@chinatelecom.cn , 
felix.liang.1...@hotmail.com  





On 1/17/23, 02:00, "Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com 
" mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com 
> wrote:


Hi all,


This e-mail starts an adoption poll for
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you
consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item?


Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the
WG should not adopt it.


Thanks,


Julien




[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6/
 








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