[Pce] Proposed PCE WG Charter update
Hi WG, The PCE WG charter (-07) was last updated in 2014. Your chairs and AD discussed the need to bring the charter up to date. We have made a proposed small update (-08) and placed it in our WG's Github - https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter A diff of the changes can be seen at - https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/main/charter-ietf-pce-07.txt=--html=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter/main/charter-ietf-pce-08.txt We request the WG to review the proposed charter update. We suggest using the mailing list for discussion and proposing substantial changes. Minor edits may also be suggested via PR directly on the GitHub. Please provide all your comments before 5th July. We would then forward the request to our AD. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11.txt
Hi WG, Adding some enhancements to the draft: * Added SR-POLICY-CAPABILITY TLV to signal whether a PCEP peer supports the extra TLVs/mechanisms that are defined in the draft. * Added a section about making Stateless PCEP (PCReq/PCRep) OPTIONAL for SR Policy, thus updating RFC 8231. * Stateful bringup was previously in pce-operational draft, where it was for ALL LSP types. But defining it for all LSP types may not be a wise choice because the scope is very large. PCEP has many applications and new ones will be added. * To reduce the scope of the update to RFC8231, we allow stateful bringup on a per-application basis, rather than PCEP-wide. Thanks, Mike. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 1:15 PM To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF. Title : PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths Authors : Mike Koldychev Siva Sivabalan Colby Barth Shuping Peng Hooman Bidgoli Filename: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11.txt Pages : 22 Date: 2023-06-20 Abstract: A Segment Routing (SR) Policy [RFC9256] is a non-empty set of SR Candidate Paths, that share the same tuple. This document extends [RFC8664] to fully support the SR Policy construct. SR Policy is modeled in PCEP as an Association of one or more SR Candidate Paths. PCEP extensions are defined to signal additional attributes of an SR Policy, which are not covered by [RFC8664]. The mechanism is applicable to all data planes of SR (MPLS, SRv6, etc.). The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/ There is also an htmlized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF. Title : PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths Authors : Mike Koldychev Siva Sivabalan Colby Barth Shuping Peng Hooman Bidgoli Filename: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11.txt Pages : 22 Date: 2023-06-20 Abstract: A Segment Routing (SR) Policy [RFC9256] is a non-empty set of SR Candidate Paths, that share the same tuple. This document extends [RFC8664] to fully support the SR Policy construct. SR Policy is modeled in PCEP as an Association of one or more SR Candidate Paths. PCEP extensions are defined to signal additional attributes of an SR Policy, which are not covered by [RFC8664]. The mechanism is applicable to all data planes of SR (MPLS, SRv6, etc.). The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/ There is also an htmlized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement/ -- COMMENT: -- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit. Special thanks to Julien Meuric for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS As noted by Jim Guichard, id-nits exhibits some issues that should be fixed before publication. ## Section 3 Is there a reason why PROTECTION MANDATORY uses BCP14 uppercase terms while PROTECTION PREFERRED uses a lower case "should" ? Especially because in section 5, "SHOULD" and "MAY" are used. # NITS ## Section 4.2 Isn't "boolean bit" a little redundant ? ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Hi Julien, I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 9:52 AM To: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'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, Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] 答复: IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. Best wishes, Haomian 发件人: julien.meu...@orange.com [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com] 发送时间: 2023年6月20日 15:52 收件人: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org 抄送: pce@ietf.org 主题: IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'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, Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'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, Julien smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'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, Julien smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] The PCE WG has placed draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
The PCE WG has placed draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Julien Meuric) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Hi all, It has been a while since draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor started to document how to extend the scope of RFC 7470. It is now time to consider its adoption by the WG. Do you think draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-16 [1] is ready to become a PCE work item? Please express your support and/or concerns using the mailing list. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor 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] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors
Hi WG, The chairs have concluded to park this WG document for the time being until we have implementations of this as well as a document using this enhanced error mechanism. In all practical terms, this document has been in this state for a while already, this status update just formalizes it. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien -- Forwarded message - From: IETF Secretariat Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:59 PM Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors To: , , < j...@juniper.net>, The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors has been changed to "Parked WG Document" from "WG Document" by Dhruv Dhody: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors/ Comment: As per the WG status slides from IETF 116 draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors * -13 posted on 2023-03-09 * No changes! * STILL no I-D currently using it * draft-ietf-pce-stateful-interdomain could, but hasn't! * RFC 8751 mentions it though Is there still interest in this work? -- The following options were suggested: * Progress this work as experimental * Would need reviewers to commit * Mark it as waiting for implementation * STILL no feedback received! -- The chairs have concluded to park this WG document for the time being until we have implementations of this as well as a document using this enhanced error mechanism. In all practical terms, this document has been in this state for a while already, this status update just formalizes it. -- ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
