[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09

[Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker]

Dhruv Dhody has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09 as None on behalf of the PCE working 
group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/


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

Re: [Pce] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional

[Cheng Li]

Thank you Dhruv, the update looks good to me. We have updated the draft already!



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/



There is also an HTMLized version available at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09



A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09

Respect,
Cheng


From: Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 7:22 PM
To: Cheng Li 
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs 

Subject: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional

Hi Authors,

I have completed my shepherd review. I have gone ahead and made some minor 
edits directly in the XML source. Please verify them and if acceptable, go 
ahead and post a new version. Once the new version is posted, we will ship it 
to the IESG.

I have also made RFC 8253 and RFC 8281 as Normative references.

Diff: 
https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-08_2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09.txt
XML for -09: 
https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09.xml
Shepherd Report: https://notes.ietf.org/iL9ZlJF-TaGgYVYU0mXrwg?view

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

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07

[Cheng Li]

Hi Shaofu,

Sorry for my delay. Yes, you are correct! We have updated the draft to fix this 
typo.

Thank you so much!
Cheng



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/



There is also an HTMLized version available at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09



A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09


From: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn 
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 9:16 AM
To: Cheng Li 
Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com
Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07




Hi Cheng,



Thanks for your response.



For the objects of intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, I didn't 
treat them as mandatory ones. But just think that the document should also give 
some guidance text on those non mandatory objects. However, I don't insist on 
this point. Perhaps without this guidance, developers can handle it correctly.



BTW, I notice the updated version(08) section "3.2.2.  The PCUpd Message and 
the PCInitiate Message" may have a spelling mistake:

... ... ignored by the PCE or the object itself conveys informational ... ...

should PCE => PCC ?



Regards,

PSF








Original
From: ChengLi mailto:c...@huawei.com>>
To: 彭少富10053815;
Cc: pce@ietf.org 
mailto:pce@ietf.org>>;pce-cha...@ietf.org 
mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>;draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org
 
mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org>>;Dhruv
 Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>;
Date: 2024年03月13日 11:35
Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Shaofu,

Many thanks for your supports and comments.

Please see our reply below.

Thanks,
Cheng



On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:25 PM 
mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn>> wrote:



Hi Chairs, WG,



I have read this document and find it is useful and support its forwarding.

Please see some comments as below:



[1]

In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that



"When the PCEP session is established, a PCC sends an Open message with an OPEN 
object that contains the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, as defined in [RFC8231]."



This mislead us to understand it is after the session established. May change to



"During the PCEP initialization phase, ..."



[Cheng]Thanks! This is a good suggestion!



or change to

"When the TCP connection is established, ..."



[2]

In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that



"R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that 
the PCEP Speaker is willing to send and receive PCEP objects with the P and I 
flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages."



This sentence is not clear because the P and I flags fields are already 
included in the PCEP objects. May change to



"R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that 
the PCEP Speaker is willing to handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common 
object header for the stateful PCE messages."



[Cheng]Another good suggestion.



[3]

For seciton 3.2.1. The PCRpt Message, it emphasizes that the P flag of 
mandatory object must be set. It may be more meaningful to provide guidance on 
the setting of the P flag for each object in intended-attribute-list and 
actual-attribute-list, that actually contain the constraints (e.g, bandwidth, 
metric) used for path computation .



[Cheng] Note that all the objects in both the intended-attribute-list and 
actual-attribute-list are optional as per the RBNF and thus would be incorrect 
to club them with mandatory objects.
Overall I don't think we can add any specifics. We can add an example but I am 
unsure how useful that is.



[4]

In 3.3.1. The PCUpd Message, it said that



"Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints 
as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCUpd 
message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path 
computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO."



"with the" in this paragraph is repeated.

[Cheng]Thanks!



Do you think that this paragraph should be moved to section 3.2.1 The PCRpt 
Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCRpt. If 
so, may changed to



[Cheng] No, we are following the format as set by RFC 5440 where this is 
described under the handling of I flag. Thus I would leave this unchanged.



"Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints 
as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCRpt message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. 
P flag is set), the subsequent PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP 
Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty 
ERO."





[5]

In 3.3.2. The PCRpt Message, it said that



"Note that when a PCC is unable to 

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09.txt

[internet-drafts]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09.txt is now available.
It is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF.

   Title:   Extension for Stateful PCE to allow Optional Processing of PCE 
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects
   Authors: Cheng Li
Haomian Zheng
Stephane Litkowski
   Name:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09.txt
   Pages:   12
   Dates:   2024-04-16

Abstract:

   This document introduces a mechanism to mark some of the Path
   Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) objects as
   optional during PCEP messages exchange for the Stateful PCE model to
   allow relaxing some constraints during path computation and setup.
   This document introduces this relaxation to stateful PCE and updates
   RFC 8231.

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/

There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09

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

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

[Cheng Li]

This is an important extension, and the content is well written, I support the 
adoption. Hope more people can work on it more critical when it becomes an WG 
draft.

Thanks,
Cheng


-Original Message-
From: Pce  On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 9:23 AM
To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

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