[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC on this I-D, 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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13
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] [spring] PCE WGLC draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15
+ pce@ietf.org Thanks Ketan. Will work with Authors and get back. - Hari On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 6:31 AM Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > Hi Hari, > > Some of my comments posted during WGLC have not yet been addressed. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/kuI6HWcpOjbgnf331VJRick6NHw/ > > The authors have incorporated some of the editorial parts, but the major > concerns related to the signaling of SRv6 MSD are yet to be addressed. The > authors have indicated that they are working on addressing those comments > and I hope we give them the time required to do so. > > I believe the same is the case for some of Adrian's comments as well. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:19 AM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan 40netflix@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am the document shepherd for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/>. >> The WGLC is over for this draft and a request for early directorate review >> has been made. If you have any comments/concerns on this I-D please post >> them on the PCE mailing list (pce@ietf.org) and they will be considered >> along with the directorate review. >> >> Thanks, >> Hari >> ___ >> spring mailing list >> spr...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC 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
[Pce] 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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color-02
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
[Pce] IETF 115 PCE WG minutes
Hi WG, Please find the minutes for PCE WG session https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-115-pce-20221200/ Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks, Dhruv, Julien & Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09: (with COMMENT)
Hi Haomian,
The emails are bouncing from huawei. Here is a snippet.
The mail system
(expanded from
): host
mx5.huawei.com[124.71.93.234] said: 554 5.7.1 Rejected due to SPF
validation, Illegal sender IP address. (in reply to DATA command)
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:07 AM Zhenghaomian
wrote:
> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the message, the -11 is now uploaded.
>
>
>
> It’s strange that I did not receive these review and response… let me try
> to figure out the problem.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Haomian
>
>
>
> *发件人:* Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com]
> *发送时间:* 2022年10月24日 14:49
> *收件人:* Zhenghaomian
> *抄送:* Erik Kline ;
> draft-ietf-pce-vn-associat...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; The IESG <
> i...@ietf.org>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <
> h...@netflix.com>; Dhruv Dhody
> *主题:* Re: [Pce] Erik Kline's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Hi Haomian,
>
>
>
> Can you make the suggested change in the below email (that Erik agreed to)
> instead of "//" for the length. The reason -> the Length field's value is
> variable, but its size is 16 bits!
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:02 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi Erik,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your review, see inline...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:23 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker <
> nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09: 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-vn-association/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> # Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-09}
> CC @ekline
>
> ## Comments
>
> ### S4
>
> * The format layout diagram, Figure 2, states that Length is variable, as
> does the text that follows it, but the use of the "|" at the end of the
> first word implied to me that it was actually a 16-bit integer.
>
> Perhaps change the end of this line to just be "//" or something?
>
> Alternatively, if this field is actually a 16-bit integer then I suggest
> clarifying the text that says it's "variable".
>
>
>
> I suggest this change -
>
>
>
> OLD:
>
>Type: TBD2 (to be allocated by IANA)
>
>Length: Variable Length, which covers the value portion of the TLV.
>
> NEW:
>Type (16-bits): TBD2 (to be allocated by IANA)
>
>Length (16-bits): indicates the length of the value portion of the
>
> TLV in octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-
>
> padded so that the TLV is 4-octet aligned.
>
> END
>
>
>
> * Related: what should an implementation do if the length of the VN is
> zero?
>
>
>
> We can add -
>
>
>
>If a PCEP speaker receives a VN ASSOCIATION object with a TLV that
>violates the rules specified in this document, then the PCEP
>
> speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10
>
> (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-value
>
>= 11 (Malformed object) and MUST close the PCEP session.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-08
Captured this in shepherd's writeup under 10. - Hari On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:31 AM John Scudder wrote: > Hi Dhruv, > > And I added Hari to the to: line, as shepherd. > > > On Sep 28, 2022, at 2:48 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > > > +jgs: Is there an established practice in PCE of using US-ASCII as the > > +character set for human-readable strings? This would seem to be a > > +practice that's discouraged by BCP 18, BCP 166. Was this discussed in > > +the WG and a decision taken to not use internationalized strings? > > +-- > > > > Dhruv: Yes. Currently all strings in PCEP are ASCII. See > https://notes.ietf.org/strings-in-pcep?view > > > > This was discussed briefly in the WG. The authors decided to keep ASCII > with the idea that all string processing would be better to be handled > together. > > Thanks. I think it would be helpful to capture this somehow in the > shepherd writeup. I don’t see a perfect place to list it, but it fits > sort-of under > > 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their > reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit > specific > attention from subsequent reviews? > > because the ART checklist includes > > • Internationalization and Localization: Unicode, UTF-8, UTF-16, > Usernames and/or Passwords, anything to be displayed to a user or otherwise > involving a phrase like "human-readable” > > Or it could be covered under questions (1) or (2), though again there > isn’t a perfect fit — maybe we should revise the shepherd template again to > (re?)introduce an optional question for “describe anything you think > interesting or relevant in the WG discussion”. > > Anyway, I don’t think anyone will be upset if you just fit the information > in somewhere... > > Regards, > > —John > > ___ > 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] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC 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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07
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
[Pce] IETF 114 PCE WG minutes
Hi WG, Please find the minutes for PCE WG session https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-114-pce-202207271330/ Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks, Dhruv, Julien & Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit
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
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-05
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG last call 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
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-02
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC 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
[Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association
Hi Authors, Thank you for your work on this document. I have completed my Shepherd's review. Minor: The document mixes VN and customer in many places. In the introduction we make it clear that "A VN is a customer view of the TE network", that should set the context. I would suggest removing the mixed use of VN and customer. 1. Introduction s/ Virtual Network (VN) (or customer) / Virtual Network (VN)/ 3. Operation Overview s/belonging to a VN\/customer/belonging to a VN/ s/to the same VN or customer/to the same VN/ Nits: Title: s/Path Computation Element communication Protocol/Path Computation Element Communication Protocol/ s/Establishing Relationships/establishing relationships/ s/Label Switching Paths/Label Switched Paths/ Abstract: s/Label Switching Paths/Label Switched Paths/ s/virtual network (VN)/Virtual Network (VN)/ 1. Introduction: s/Path Computation Element communication Protocol/Path Computation Element Communication Protocol/ s/Path Computation Clients '(PCCs)/Path Computation Clients (PCCs)/ s/Label Switching Paths (LSPs)/Label Switched Paths (LSPs)/ 3. Operation Overview s/VN Association Type in an Operator-Configured/VN Association Type (TBD1) in an Operator-Configured/ 4. Extensions to PCEP s/The Virtual Netowrk Identifier/The Virtual Network Identifier/ Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05
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
[Pce] IETF 113 PCE WG minutes
Hi WG, Please find the minutes for PCE WG session https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-113-pce/ Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks, Dhruv, Julien & Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-tokar-pce-sid-algo
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
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-16
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC 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
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-l2-flowspec
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
[Pce] IETF 112 PCE WG minutes
Hi WG, Please find the minutes for the PCE WG session - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-112-pce/ Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks, Dhruv, Julien & Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional
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
[Pce] IETF 111 PCE WG minutes
Hi WG, Please find the minutes for the PCE WG session - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-111-pce/ Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks, Dhruv, Julien & Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] PCE WG Agenda for IETF 111
Hi WG, The agenda for the PCE WG sessions during IETF 111 is posted - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-pce.html Presenters, please send your slides to pce-cha...@ietf.org by Friday 23rd July, earlier is much better! Some useful information regarding the meeting tool: https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/technology/meetecho-guide-participant/ https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/111/ietf111-meetecho/ Thanks! Dhruv, Julien & Hari ICS:https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/sessions/pce.ics Timezone: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IETF+PCE+WG+Session+I+&iso=20210726T1430&p1=224&ah=1 https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IETF+PCE+WG+Session+II+&iso=20210729T12&p1=224&ah=1 ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Call for Agenda Request
Hi, The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 111 [1] week. If you need agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to the chairs/secretary by Monday, July 12th by including: - the draft(s) you want to discuss, - the expected presenter name, - the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot, - the reason why you want to be on the agenda; What do you want to achieve? Why is a presentation necessary to achieve it? Please note - Asking for a slot does not mean you will get one. We will be prioritizing moving WG work first as well as drafts that were discussed on the mailing list. Please make sure to introduce your new draft or summarize an update on the mailing list. The last date to submit drafts is also Monday, July 12th [2]. Thanks! PCE Chairs & Secretary [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/agenda [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync
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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-05
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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG Last Call 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
[Pce] IETF 110 PCE WG minutes
Hi WG, Please find the minutes for the PCE WG session - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-110-pce/ Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks, Dhruv, Julien & Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-09
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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02
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] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-12
Thanks for addressing the comments. - Hari On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 6:26 PM Mahend Negi wrote: > Hi Hari, > Thanks for your comments, a new version of the draft is submitted. > > Htmlized version: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-13 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-13 > > Regards, > Mahendra > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:14 AM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan > wrote: > >> Hi Authors, >> >> >> Please find the review comments below: >> >> >> Title >> >> OLD >> >> Path Communication Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) extension >> for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs) >> >> >> NEW >> >> Path Communication Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension >> for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs) >> >> >> 1. Introduction >> >> >> OLD >> >> [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication >> Protocol(PCEP) which enables communication between a Path Computation >> Client(PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), >> >> >> NEW >> >> [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication >> Protocol(PCEP) which enables communication between a Path Computation >> Client(PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), >> >> >> >> 2. Terminology >> >> >> OLD >> >> PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a path >> computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. >> >> >> NEW >> >> PCC: Path Computation Client; any client application requesting a >> >> path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. >> >> >> OLD >> >> PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, >> >> or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or >> >> route based on a network graph and applying computational >> >> constraints. >> >> >> NEW >> >> PCE: Path Computation Element; an entity (component, application, or >> >> network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route >> >> based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. >> >> >> 3. Motivation >> >> OLD >> >> Similarly, a PCC could request a user- or service-specific policy >> >> >> NEW >> >> Similarly, a PCC could request a user-specific or service-specific >> policy >> >> >> 3.1 Policy based Constraints >> >> OLD >> >> In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path >> computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE. >> >> >> NEW >> >> In the context of Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework [RFC5394], >> path computation policies may be applied at either a PCC or a PCE or both. >> >> >> OLD >> >> The PCC may also apply user- or service-specific policies to decide >> >> >> NEW >> >> The PCC may also apply user-specific or service-specific policies to >> decide >> >> >> >> OLD >> >> The user- or service-specific policies applied to PCC and are passed to >> the PCE along with the Path computation request, in the form of constraints >> [RFC5394] >> >> >> NEW >> >> The user-specific or service-specific policies applied to PCC are passed >> to the PCE along with the path computation request, in the form of >> constraints [RFC5394] >> >> >> >> 4. Overview >> >> OLD >> >> This document defines a new Association type, called “Policy Association” >> (TBD1), based on the generic ASSOCIATION object. >> >> >> NEW >> >> This document defines a new association type, called “Policy Association” >> of value 3, based on the generic ASSOCIATION object. >> >> >> OLD >> >> This capability exchange for the PAT (TBD1) MUST be done before using the >> policy association. >> >> >> NEW >> >> This capability exchange for the PAT MUST be done before using the policy >> association. >> >> >> OLD >> >> Thus the PCEP speaker MUST include the PAT (TBD1) in the ASSOC-Type-List >> TLV >> >> >> NEW >> >> Thus the PCEP speaker MUST include t
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC on this draft, I'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. We are aware of this disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2995/ 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
[Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-12
Hi Authors, Please find the review comments below: Title OLD Path Communication Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs) NEW Path Communication Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 1. Introduction OLD [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication Protocol(PCEP) which enables communication between a Path Computation Client(PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), NEW [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol(PCEP) which enables communication between a Path Computation Client(PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), 2. Terminology OLD PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. NEW PCC: Path Computation Client; any client application requesting a path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. OLD PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. NEW PCE: Path Computation Element; an entity (component, application, or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. 3. Motivation OLD Similarly, a PCC could request a user- or service-specific policy NEW Similarly, a PCC could request a user-specific or service-specific policy 3.1 Policy based Constraints OLD In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE. NEW In the context of Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework [RFC5394], path computation policies may be applied at either a PCC or a PCE or both. OLD The PCC may also apply user- or service-specific policies to decide NEW The PCC may also apply user-specific or service-specific policies to decide OLD The user- or service-specific policies applied to PCC and are passed to the PCE along with the Path computation request, in the form of constraints [RFC5394] NEW The user-specific or service-specific policies applied to PCC are passed to the PCE along with the path computation request, in the form of constraints [RFC5394] 4. Overview OLD This document defines a new Association type, called “Policy Association” (TBD1), based on the generic ASSOCIATION object. NEW This document defines a new association type, called “Policy Association” of value 3, based on the generic ASSOCIATION object. OLD This capability exchange for the PAT (TBD1) MUST be done before using the policy association. NEW This capability exchange for the PAT MUST be done before using the policy association. OLD Thus the PCEP speaker MUST include the PAT (TBD1) in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV NEW Thus the PCEP speaker MUST include the PAT in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV 5.1. Policy Parameters TLV OLD 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type=TBD2 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NEW 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type=48 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ OLD The type of the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is TBD2 NEW The type of the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is 48 Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-association-policy
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC 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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC 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
[Pce] PCE WG agenda request for 108
Hi WG, The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 108 [1] week. If you need some agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to the chairs/secretary by Wednesday 8th July including: - the draft(s) you want to discuss, - the expected presenter name, - the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot, - the reason why you want to be on the agenda; What do you want to achieve? Why is a presentation necessary to achieve it? Please note - Asking for a slot does not mean you will get one. We will be prioritizing moving WG work first as well as drafts that were discussed on the mailing list. Please make sure to introduce your new draft or summarize an update on the mailing list. The last date to submit drafts is Monday, July 13th [2]. Thanks! PCE Chairs & Secretary [1] https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/108/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/important-dates/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
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 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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group 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 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
[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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] Agenda for IETF 106
Hi, Please send your slides to pce-cha...@ietf.org by Tuesday 19th Nov. Thanks, Hari On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:43 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > The final agenda for PCE WG meeting at IETF 106 is uploaded - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-pce.html > > Please send your slides to pce-cha...@ietf.org by Tuesday 19th Nov, > earlier is much better! > > If any of the presenters are remote, please do let us know now. > > Also use the mailing list to discuss your drafts to make the WG > meeting more fruitful. > > Thanks! > Dhruv, Julien & Hari. > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Building the PCE WG Agenda for the IETF 106
Hi WG, The PCE WG session in Singapore is tentatively scheduled for Monday Morning session I [1]. If you need some face-to-face time to progress some work, please send a slot request to the chairs by Monday November 4th including: - the draft(s) you want to discuss, - the expected presenter name, - the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot, - the reason why you want to be on the agenda; What do you want to achieve? Why is a presentation necessary to achieve it? Please note - Asking for a slot does not mean you will get one. We will be prioritizing moving WG work first as well as drafts that were discussed on the mailing list. Please make sure to introduce your new draft or summarize an update in the mailing list. The last date to submit drafts is also November 4th [2]. Thanks! PCE Chairs & Secretary [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/agenda.html [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment-08
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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
[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan has requested publication of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-01
Hi Adrian, This document is well written and clear. Thanks for the update. Please find below my comments on draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-01. OLD: 8. IANA Considerations This document makes no requests for IANA action NEW: The current IANA for this object has reference to "RFC8281" ( https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#srp-object-flag-field) Dont we want that refer to this new draft since we have updated the text ? Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR Poll on draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-01
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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
[Pce] IPR poll on draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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
[Pce] IPR poll on draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group 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. One IPR has already been disclosed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3329/ 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 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
[Pce] Preliminary PCE WG agenda for IETF 105
Hi WG, The preliminary PCE WG agenda for IETF 105 is published at - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-105-pce/ -- To those on the agenda, do think about how to best utilise the valuable F2F time during the meeting and what do you want to achieve with your time. Please keep some time for Q&A and receiving feedback. Please send your slides to pce-cha...@ietf.org by Monday the 22nd 1200 (local time); in order for us to upload material in advance for the meeting. In your slides make sure to focus on the open issues and the recent changes in your draft. Do consider sending slides in a PDF format to avoid any unexpected formatting issues. We urge you use the mailing list to introduce your new drafts, the latest changes, list any open issues, socialise new ideas, ask for feedback etc. -- To authors of WG I-D, please check the WG Wiki at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki and in case any change is required for your I-D, you could send a note to pce-cha...@ietf.org. We would use this information to prepare the WG status report. -- Thanks! PCE WG Secretary & Chairs ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05
+ Authors. On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:31 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote: > --- > Header: > In general should we use "Stateful PCE" or "stateful PCE" ? I see in RFC > 8231 we use "Stateful PCE" > > OLD: > Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) > > NEW: > Ability for a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) > > > Abstract: > OLD: > A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) > > NEW: > A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) > > - > Section 4: > To make it more clear, it would be good to state that C and D flags are > mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. > > OLD: > > The PCE SHOULD NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to > the > PCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT > be set. > > > NEW: > > The D Flag and C Flag are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. The PCE SHOULD > NOT > > send control request for LSP which is already delegated to thePCE, i.e. if > > the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set. > > > -- > > I dont see Adrian's suggestion being implemented in Section 8 in the latest > draft. It would be good to have this apart from the Security Considerations. > > > SUGGESTED: > > Not sure whether it belongs in 8.1 or 8.3 or 7... > The Security considerations section suggests dropping delegation > requests if the PCC is swamped. I think you need to configure the > threshold for swamping, and to recommend that the issue be logged. > > IMPLEMENTED: > > - > > Thanks, > Hari > > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05
--- Header: In general should we use "Stateful PCE" or "stateful PCE" ? I see in RFC 8231 we use "Stateful PCE" OLD: Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) NEW: Ability for a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Abstract: OLD: A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) NEW: A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) - Section 4: To make it more clear, it would be good to state that C and D flags are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. OLD: The PCE SHOULD NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the PCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set. NEW: The D Flag and C Flag are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. The PCE SHOULD NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to thePCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set. -- I dont see Adrian's suggestion being implemented in Section 8 in the latest draft. It would be good to have this apart from the Security Considerations. SUGGESTED: Not sure whether it belongs in 8.1 or 8.3 or 7... The Security considerations section suggests dropping delegation requests if the PCC is swamped. I think you need to configure the threshold for swamping, and to recommend that the issue be logged. IMPLEMENTED: - Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Building the PCE WG Agenda for the IETF 105
Hi WG, The PCE WG session in Montreal is tentatively scheduled for Thursday Morning session I [1]. If you need some face-to-face time to progress some work, please send a slot request to the chairs by Monday July 8th including: - the draft(s) you want to discuss, - the expected presenter name, - the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot, - the reason why you want to be on the agenda; What do you want to achieve? Why is a presentation necessary to achieve it? Please note - Asking for a slot does not mean you will get one. We will be prioritizing moving WG work first as well as drafts that were discussed on the mailing list. Please make sure to introduce your new draft or summarize an update in the mailing list. The last date to submit drafts is also July 8th [2]. Thanks! PCE Chairs & Secretary [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/agenda.html [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
Hi Authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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 LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection
Hi Julien, The documents are good for publication. Thanks, Hari On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:01 AM wrote: > Hi all, > > We have not heard from anyone on this WG LC before it ended. Though we > prefer detailed comments, it would be great to see at least if you > believe these I-Ds are ready to be sent to the IESG. If you (intend to) > implement any of them, that would be nice to let the chairs know as well. > > Thanks, > > ADJ > > On 23/04/2019 10:52, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Only one week left to review: no reason to wait for the last minute, do > > not be shy to share your comments and/or implementation status. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adrian, Dhruv & Julien > > > > > > On 09/04/2019 16:05, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This message initiates a bulk WG Last Call for both > >> draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06 and > >> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-04. Please review these > >> documents and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list. > >> > >> If you have an implementation of any of them, you may let the chairs > >> know privately. > >> > >> This double LC will last for 3 weeks and will end on Tuesday April 30. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien > > > _ > > 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 mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection
Hi Authors, Please respond ASAP if you have not already done so. The WC LC runs till 4/30. - Hari On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:57 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote: > Hi authors, > > In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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-ietf-pce-association-diversity
Hi Authors, Please respond ASAP if you have not already done so. The WC LC runs till 4/30. - Hari On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:57 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote: > Hi authors, > > In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. - Hari On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:57 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote: > Hi authors, > > In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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
[Pce] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity
Hi authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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
[Pce] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection
Hi authors, In preparation for Working Group last call 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 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 Check on draft-ietf-pce-association-group
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Thanks, Hari On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:14 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. > > Regards, > Dhruv > > PS. added Hari's updated email. > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:31 PM Julien Meuric > wrote: > >> Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-association-group, >> >> Could you please send an email to the PCE mailing list saying whether >> you are aware of any IPR that applies to >> draft-ietf-pce-association-group and, if so, if it has been disclosed in >> compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for >> more details.) >> If you are not aware of any IPR that applies, please reply saying "I am >> not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft". >> >> A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed with >> publication request. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon & Julien >> > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05
yes/support as a co-author. - Hari From: Jonathan Hardwick Date: Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 04:10 To: "pce@ietf.org" , "draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protect...@ietf.org" Cc: "pce-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 Resent-From: Resent-To: , , , , , Resent-Date: Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 04:09 Dear PCE WG This is the start of a two week poll on making draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection/ Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating “yes/support” or “no/do not support”. If indicating no, please state your reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends on Tuesday, April 10. Many thanks, Jon and Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG LC of draft-ietf-pce-association-group
Support as co-author. - Hari On 01/02/2018, 06:10, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote: Hi all, This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04. Please review and share your feedback on the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Thursday February, 15. Regards, Jon & Julien ___ 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] New Version Notification for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-01.txt
On 10/03/2016, 09:25, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-01.txt >has been successfully submitted by Hariharan Ananthakrishnan and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection >Revision: 01 >Title: PCEP Extensions for MPSL-TE LSP Path Protection with stateful >PCE >Document date: 2016-03-10 >Group: Individual Submission >Pages: 12 >URL: >https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-01.txt >Status: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection/ >Htmlized: >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-01 >Diff: >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-01 > >Abstract: > A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as > well as controlling via Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) > Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering Label Switched > Paths (MPLS LSP). Furthermore, it is also possible for a stateful > PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document describes > PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end > path protection. > > > > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >The IETF Secretariat > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Poll on Adoption of draft-minei-pce-association-group-03
Support as co-author. - Hari On 04/11/2015, 09:36, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote: >Dear all, > >Following our discussion during the WG meeting yesterday, do you support >the adoption of draft-minei-pce-association-group-03 as a starting point >for a new PCE WG item? If not, please motivate your answer. > >In any case, comments are welcome. > >Regards, > >Jon, JP & Julien > >___ >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] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02 and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01
Support. - Hari On 01/12/2014 17:18, "julien.meu...@orange.com" wrote: >Dear all, > >As planned, this message ignites a 3-week WG Last Call on both >draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02 and >draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01. It will end on Monday >December 22 at 11:59 PM, HST. > >Please send your comments to the PCE mailing list. > >Thanks, > >JP & Julien > > >__ >___ > >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 mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt
Inline.. From: Dhruv Dhody mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 8:17 PM To: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:hanan...@juniper.net>>, Ina Minei mailto:inami...@google.com>> Cc: "pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>" mailto:pce@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt Hi Hari, Apologies for butting in, but... From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hariharan Ananthakrishnan Subject: Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt Thanks Ina. Another followup question. Can a PCC use PCReq with an 'active stateful PCE' ? The PCE could respond with a PCUpdate in return or PCErr. This will be useful for a PCC to trigger a path (re)computation based on 'local event' that a PCE might not be aware of. [DD] A "local events" can simply be reported to the active stateful PCE via PCRpt for a delegated LSP... Do you have any specific event in mind that would require PCReq instead? [Hari] The local event could be a timer event say re-optimize timer.. Dhruv - Hari From: Ina Minei mailto:inami...@google.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 6:21 PM To: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:hanan...@juniper.net>> Cc: "pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>" mailto:pce@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt Hari, Thank you for the review, please find answers inline, marked [ina] On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:hanan...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Authors, Couple of comments: [1] section 5.6.2 - Active Stateful PCE LSP Update " For each LSP, it sends an LSP State Report carried on PCRpt message to the PCE, indicating that the LSP's status is 'Pending'. " [Hari] What is the "Pending" status corresponds to in LSP Object ? Is it LSP Operational bits (0-7) ? Does state 'Pending' corresponds to GOING-DOWN(3) or GOING-UP(4) ?\ [ina] Yes, will clean up the text. "Pending" is a leftover from much earlier incarnations of this draft. [2] section 6.2 - The PCUpd Message "A PCC May respond with multiple LSP State Reports to report LSP setup progress of a single LSP. In that case, the SRP-ID-number MUST be included for the first message, for subsequent messages the reserved value 0x SHOULD be used". [Hari] A PCC implementation may send a PCRpt immediately after receiving a PCUpdate (without waiting for RSVP completion). Later it sends a PCRpt, when it receives updates from RSVP. Putting this behavior in the above context, could you please clarify the if the below behavior is correct: PCUpdate (SRP-ID 100) -> PCC PCE <--- PCRpt (SRP-ID 100, LSP Operational = GOING-UP) [ Without waiting for RSVP signaling ] PCE <--- PCRpt (SRP-ID 0x000, LSP Operational bit = UP ] [After receiving successful RSVP setup ] [ina] Yes [3] section 7.2 (SRP Object) "An SRP-ID-number is considered unacknowledged and cannot be reused until a PCErr or PCRpt arrives with an SRP-ID-number equal or higher for the same LSP. A PCRpt with state "Pending" is not considered as an acknowledgement." [ina] This text is not applicable, it is left over from earlier discussions on the SRP, thank you for pointing this out. [Hari] Per section 6.2, the first message (PCRpt) will have the SRP-ID and status as "Pending" since the LSP hasn't been signaled. In this case, does the SRP-ID in PCRpt considered unacknowledged ? It would be great if the SRP-ID could be explained with an example especially for the PCUpdate cases from PCC perspective. [4] Section 7.3.1. [Hari] Shouldn't the IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERES-TLV length be 16 ? Similar changes for IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIER-TLV. [ina] Yes, thank you for catching, the TLV was changed in version 07 but the length was not updated at that time :-( [5] General Comment. Will the "Type=[TBD]" in 7.xx sections be updated with the proposed values in section 8.x. [ina] Yes. Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto: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] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt
Thanks Ina. Another followup question. Can a PCC use PCReq with an 'active stateful PCE' ? The PCE could respond with a PCUpdate in return or PCErr. This will be useful for a PCC to trigger a path (re)computation based on 'local event' that a PCE might not be aware of. - Hari From: Ina Minei mailto:inami...@google.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 6:21 PM To: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:hanan...@juniper.net>> Cc: "pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>" mailto:pce@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt Hari, Thank you for the review, please find answers inline, marked [ina] On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:hanan...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Authors, Couple of comments: [1] section 5.6.2 - Active Stateful PCE LSP Update " For each LSP, it sends an LSP State Report carried on PCRpt message to the PCE, indicating that the LSP's status is 'Pending'. " [Hari] What is the "Pending" status corresponds to in LSP Object ? Is it LSP Operational bits (0-7) ? Does state 'Pending' corresponds to GOING-DOWN(3) or GOING-UP(4) ?\ [ina] Yes, will clean up the text. "Pending" is a leftover from much earlier incarnations of this draft. [2] section 6.2 - The PCUpd Message "A PCC May respond with multiple LSP State Reports to report LSP setup progress of a single LSP. In that case, the SRP-ID-number MUST be included for the first message, for subsequent messages the reserved value 0x SHOULD be used". [Hari] A PCC implementation may send a PCRpt immediately after receiving a PCUpdate (without waiting for RSVP completion). Later it sends a PCRpt, when it receives updates from RSVP. Putting this behavior in the above context, could you please clarify the if the below behavior is correct: PCUpdate (SRP-ID 100) -> PCC PCE <--- PCRpt (SRP-ID 100, LSP Operational = GOING-UP) [ Without waiting for RSVP signaling ] PCE <--- PCRpt (SRP-ID 0x000, LSP Operational bit = UP ] [After receiving successful RSVP setup ] [ina] Yes [3] section 7.2 (SRP Object) "An SRP-ID-number is considered unacknowledged and cannot be reused until a PCErr or PCRpt arrives with an SRP-ID-number equal or higher for the same LSP. A PCRpt with state "Pending" is not considered as an acknowledgement." [ina] This text is not applicable, it is left over from earlier discussions on the SRP, thank you for pointing this out. [Hari] Per section 6.2, the first message (PCRpt) will have the SRP-ID and status as "Pending" since the LSP hasn't been signaled. In this case, does the SRP-ID in PCRpt considered unacknowledged ? It would be great if the SRP-ID could be explained with an example especially for the PCUpdate cases from PCC perspective. [4] Section 7.3.1. [Hari] Shouldn't the IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERES-TLV length be 16 ? Similar changes for IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIER-TLV. [ina] Yes, thank you for catching, the TLV was changed in version 07 but the length was not updated at that time :-( [5] General Comment. Will the "Type=[TBD]" in 7.xx sections be updated with the proposed values in section 8.x. [ina] Yes. Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt
Hi Authors, Couple of comments: [1] section 5.6.2 - Active Stateful PCE LSP Update " For each LSP, it sends an LSP State Report carried on PCRpt message to the PCE, indicating that the LSP's status is 'Pending'. " [Hari] What is the "Pending" status corresponds to in LSP Object ? Is it LSP Operational bits (0-7) ? Does state 'Pending' corresponds to GOING-DOWN(3) or GOING-UP(4) ? [2] section 6.2 - The PCUpd Message "A PCC May respond with multiple LSP State Reports to report LSP setup progress of a single LSP. In that case, the SRP-ID-number MUST be included for the first message, for subsequent messages the reserved value 0x SHOULD be used". [Hari] A PCC implementation may send a PCRpt immediately after receiving a PCUpdate (without waiting for RSVP completion). Later it sends a PCRpt, when it receives updates from RSVP. Putting this behavior in the above context, could you please clarify the if the below behavior is correct: PCUpdate (SRP-ID 100) -> PCC PCE <--- PCRpt (SRP-ID 100, LSP Operational = GOING-UP) [ Without waiting for RSVP signaling ] PCE <--- PCRpt (SRP-ID 0x000, LSP Operational bit = UP ] [After receiving successful RSVP setup ] [3] section 7.2 (SRP Object) "An SRP-ID-number is considered unacknowledged and cannot be reused until a PCErr or PCRpt arrives with an SRP-ID-number equal or higher for the same LSP. A PCRpt with state "Pending" is not considered as an acknowledgement." [Hari] Per section 6.2, the first message (PCRpt) will have the SRP-ID and status as "Pending" since the LSP hasn't been signaled. In this case, does the SRP-ID in PCRpt considered unacknowledged ? It would be great if the SRP-ID could be explained with an example especially for the PCUpdate cases from PCC perspective. [4] Section 7.3.1. [Hari] Shouldn't the IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERES-TLV length be 16 ? Similar changes for IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIER-TLV. [5] General Comment. Will the "Type=[TBD]" in 7.xx sections be updated with the proposed values in section 8.x. Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
