[Pce] pce - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 120

[IETF Meeting Session Request Tool]

A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Dhruv Dhody, a Chair
of the PCE Working Group.


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


Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours
Number of Attendees: 75
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 Chair conflict: spring teas ccamp iabopen gendispatch
 Key participant conflict: 6man pals v6ops savnet rtgwg rtgarea rift opsawg 
nmrg netmod netconf mpls lsvr lsr ippm idr bier bess grow tvr cats detnet nmop 
ivy irtfopen hrpc genarea dispatch anrw alldispatch nmop srv6ops

   


Participants who must be present:
  Andrew Stone

Resources Requested:

Special Requests:
  Do not schedule against BOFs if possible.
-


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

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

[daniel]

Hi All, 

 

/Support

 

I'm a believer in the work. For some scenarios that use PCE, especially optical 
deployments, not having to implement BGP will be a big benefit. 

 

The authors have proposed that the intended status should be "experimental," 
and provide the scope of the experiment in the document, which I also fully 
support. 

 

One observation is that the authors make good use of the "Implementation 
Status" section, it looks like the first example is related to:  

 

Experimental validation of the ACTN architecture for flexi-grid optical 
networks using Active Stateful Hierarchical PCEs

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8025182

 

It might be useful to provide a reference to a pre-print (version), so you 
don't have to reference the paywall version of the paper:

https://zenodo.org/record/832904/files/Experimental%20Validation%20of%20the%20ACTN%20architecture.pdf

 

If it is not related, then you have one more implementation example. 

 

A few minor NITS that you might want  to squash as the document develops:

 

Abstract 

 

OLD: a Path Computation Elements (PCEs) require

NEW: Path Computation Elements (PCEs) require

 

Introduction 

 

Both "multiprotocol" and "multi-protocol" are used in the document.

 

OLD: Interior Gateway Protocol (IGPs)

NEW: Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs)

 

OLD: It is important that the TED be

NEW: The TED must be

 

OLD:  timely topology and TED update at the PCE

NEW:  timely topology and TED updates at the PCE

 

OLD: This document describes a mechanism by which

NEW:  This document describes how

 

OLD:  Further as described

NEW: Further, as described

 

OLD: state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs in case of stateful PCE

NEW: state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs in the case of stateful PCE

 

Scope

 

OLD: this document specifies new PCEP message and object/TLVs

NEW: this document specifies new PCEP messages and object/TLVs

 

OLD: the rules for a unknown message as per

NEW: the rules for an unknown message as per

 

OLD: Further since a PCEP speaker

NEW: Further, since a PCEP speaker

 

Applicability 

 

You capitalize "Parent" but not "child". 

 

OLD: would like to use PCEP as direct southbound interface

NEW: would like to use PCEP as a direct southbound interface

 

Requirements for PCEP extensions  (extensions should be capitalized)

 

OLD: Following key requirements associated with link-state (and TE) 
distribution are identified for PCEP:

NEW:  The following key requirements associated with link-state (and TE) 
distribution are identified for PCEP:

 

OLD: During PCEP Initialization Phase

NEW: During the PCEP Initialization Phase

 

Capability Advertisement 

 

OLD: If the PCE that supports the extensions of this draft

NEW:  If the PCE supports the extensions defined in this draft

 

Initial Link-State (and TE) Synchronization

 

OLD: does not send positive acknowledgments

NEW: does not send positive acknowledgements

 

LS Object

 

OLD: In case PCC only provides local information

NEW: In case the PCC only provides local information

 

OLD: all types of LS object is as follows

NEW: all types of LS objects are as follows

 

Link Descriptors TLV

 

OLD: TLVs can carry data sourced either by IS-IS or OSPF or direct.

NEW: TLVs can carry data sourced by IS-IS, OSPF, or direct.

 

(As above for " Link Attributes TLV".)

 

Information and Data Models

 

OLD: An implementation SHOULD also provide the statistics:

NEW: An implementation SHOULD also provide the following statistics:

 

Verify Correct Operations

 

OLD: to those already listed in [RFC5440] .
NEW: to those already listed in [RFC5440].

 

BR, Dan. 

 

From: Aijun Wang  
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:53 AM
To: daniele.i...@gmail.com
Cc: Adrian Farrel ; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

 

Support for its forwarding.

 

PCEP has almost all the corresponding parts of BGP to control the devices, 
implement and deploy the PCEP-LS can assist the simplification of SDN 
controller/PCE.

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom





On Apr 13, 2024, at 00:34, daniele.i...@gmail.com 
  wrote:



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 mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org> > 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 

Re: [Pce] IPR poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

[Sergio Belotti (Nokia)]

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

Thanks
Sergio

From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 5:14 PM
To: dhruv.i...@gmail.com; Shuping Peng ; 
younglee...@gmail.com; daniele.i...@gmail.com; Aijun Wang 
; gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com; ssiva...@ciena.com; 
udayasreere...@gmail.com; Sergio Belotti (Nokia) ; 
satish.karunani...@gmail.com; Cheng Li ; pce@ietf.org; 
pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: IPR poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

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