Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

[daniele.ietf]

Hi Julien, all,

 

Adrian got the point. It would be an interesting experiment to see. And yes, 
the idea of PCEP-LS started from those cases where PCEP is there and BGP is 
not, hence I support (as author) the adoption of the draft.

 

Cheers,
Daniele  

 

From: Pce  On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:17 PM
To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

 

Thanks, Julien. 

  

Once upon a time, I was quite skeptical about this idea, and unhappy to see it 
progress. But I have become used to the idea, and two things help me believe we 
should adopt this: 

  

1. As an Experiment, this can be tried out and we can see how well it works. If 
it is nonsense, no harm done. The authors' willingness to proceed as 
Experimental is reassuring. 

  

2. The applicability to optical networks (separate draft) is convincing because 
it is easier to believe that optical devices do not want to add BGP-LS to their 
code stack (even if it is only a couple of thpusand lines of code). 

  

So, I support adoption and commit to working with the authors to improve the 
draft. 

  

I think the current description of the Experiment is pretty good, but work will 
be needed to sort out the IANA stuff. I just posted a draft to help with 
Experimental Error-Types. 

  

Best, 

Adrian 

On 04/04/2024 18:18 CEST julien.meu...@orange.com 
  wrote: 

  

  

Hi all, 

  

We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to 

progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense 

than an independent submission. 

As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become 

a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing 

list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case 

you're opposed. 

  

Thank you, 

  

Julien 

  

--- 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ 

  

___ 

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] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

[Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)]

Hi Julien, 

I support the WG adoption of this work. It has been a long time since this work 
was started. It is an useful experiment. It would be good if the WG adopts it 
and progresses it further, especially helps with the IANA issues as Adrian 
pointed out. 

Thank you! 

Best Regards,
Shuping 


-Original Message-
From: Pce  On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:19 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

Hi all,

We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress 
it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an 
independent submission.
As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE 
WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including 
your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed.

Thank you,

Julien

---
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/

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