Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6

[Stefano Previdi]

Hi, 

I support the adoption of this draft since it's part of the whole SRv6 work.

Thanks.
s.

> -Original Message-
> From: Pce  ;> On 
> Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com 
> Sent: 16 January 2023 18:00
> To: pce@ietf.org 
> Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of 
> draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This e-mail starts an adoption poll for 
> draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you 
> consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item?
> 
> Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the 
> WG should not adopt it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Julien

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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07

[Stefano Previdi]

Hi,

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


Thanks.
s.


On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 18:10 Hariharan Ananthakrishnan 
wrote:

> 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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06

[stefano previdi]

Hi,

I support the adoption of this document.

thanks.
s.


> On Jun 7, 2020, at 9:45 AM, Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> 
> Hi WG,
> 
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/
> 
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are
> you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to
> the list.
> 
> This adoption poll will end on 22nd June 2020.
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & 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] Query regarding draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02

[stefano previdi]

Hi Dhruv, 

I agree with your proposed changes:

1. only mention the 20 bits label value
2. fix the length to 4.


Thanks.
s.


> On Mar 24, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> 
> Hi Mrinmoy,
> 
> I will give authors some time to respond and confirm (and spin a new
> update). I have noted this in the PCE WG wiki [
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki/WikiStart ] to make sure we could
> track this to closure.
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:11 PM Mrinmoy Das  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Dhruv,
>> 
>> Thanks for your quick reply.
>> 
>> I have added PCE WG in this mail. More inline.
>> 
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Mrinmoy
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Mrinmoy,
>>> 
>>> I was suggest you to also include pce@ietf.org; WG could benefit from
>>> the discussion in future. More inline.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mrinmoy Das  wrote:
 
 Respected Authors and Contributors,
 
 Hope you all are doing well and safe in this tough times of Corona Virus 
 Outbreak.
 
 I like to draw your attention regarding some parts of 
 draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02 which I didn't able to understand 
 properly.
 
 1. BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
 
  specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
  other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
  The Length MUST be set to 7.
 
 
Previous versions of private draft uses 4 byte to store MPLS 20 Bit 
 label and ignores TC, S & TTL fields.
>>> 
>>> The length in the previous version was 6, which was incorrect. The TLV
>>> length is as per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.1
>>> Which didnt make sense and your calculation below is correct!
>>> 
But in IETF draft after TLV structure redefinition, total length of the 
 TLV becomes 7, i.e. BT(1 Byte)+Reserved(3 Byte)+MPLS 20bit Label(3 Byte) = 
 7 Byte
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
So, now MPLS 20 Bit Labelwill be stored in 3 byte. Is it correct?
>>> 
>>> You can consider it a case of rounding up 20 bits to 3 bytes.
>>> 
>>> 
If this is correct then I feel the wording of the above paragraph needs 
 to be more specific, meaning in 3 Byte Label there will be no space for 
 TTL, so
my suggestion is to make below correction:
 
BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
 
  specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
  other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
  The Length MUST be set to 7.
 
>>> 
>>> My suggestion would be not mention any of the other fields and talk
>>> only of 20 bits of Label. I see other SR RFCs take similar approach.
>> 
>> 
>> Sounds Good. I'm agree with you.
>> 
>>> 
 
 2. In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
 
  binding value.  It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
  empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
  (making the length field of the TLV as 2).  A PCE can also make the
  request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
  sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
 
 
  As per new Binding TLV Structure below, BT is of 1 Byte and there will be 
 3 Byte Reserved.
 
 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  | Length|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |  BT   | Reserved  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  ~Binding Value (variable length)~
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
 
   Now, an empty Binding TLV should have length of BT(1 Byte) + Reserved (3 
 Byte) = 4 Byte instead of 2 Byte.
 
   So, I do not understand how in the draft it is calculated as 2 Byte. 
 Could you please give me some clue?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This seems to be an error IMHO. 4 seems to be correct.
>> 
>> 
>> Okay. So what would  be your suggestion to developer who is implementing 
>> this draft? Should it be taken as 4? If draft needs correction
>> when will that be published?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Dhruv
>>> 
 
 Thanks & Regards,
 Mrinmoy

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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07

[stefano previdi]

Hi,

as co-author, I do support the adoption of this draft for which we already have 
multiple implementations.

Thanks.
s.


> From: Dhruv Dhody 
> Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:14 PM
> Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07
> To: 
> Cc: pce-chairs 
> 
> 
> Hi WG,
> 
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07 [1].
> 
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why /
> Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to
> work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
> 
> One of the chairs did a pre-adoption review [2] and authors posted a new
> revision. Note that there are known implementations.
> 
> This adoption poll will end on 6th September 2019.
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv (for the chairs)
> 
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/oaBIRA9FnNsV6-JrKKRCdwtLysk

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

Re: [Pce] IPR poll on draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07

[stefano previdi]

Hi,

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

Thanks.
s.


> On Aug 21, 2019, at 5:40 AM, 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] Working group last call (including final IPR check) for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09

[Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)]

Hi,

as a contributor, I’m not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

Thanks.
s.



> On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Jonathan Hardwick 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear PCE working group,
>  
> This email starts a working group last call for 
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/
>  
> Please read the document and send any comments you have to the PCE mailing 
> list no later than 21 June.
>  
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to 
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed 
> in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for 
> more details) prior to moving forward.  If you are listed as a document 
> Author or Contributor of this document, please respond to this email and 
> indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The 
> document won't progress without answers from all the Authors and 
> Contributors.  No IPR disclosures currently exist against this document.
>  
> Many thanks
> Jon, JP and 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] Solicit Comments on draft-li-spring-tunnel-segment-00 and draft-li-pce-tunnel-segment-00

[Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)]

I’d suggest you to have a look at draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-00.txt

Thanks.
s.


> On Nov 1, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Lizhenbin  wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks,
> We proposes two drafts on the new type of segment in the segment routing: 
> draft-li-spring-tunnel-segment-00 and draft-li-pce-tunnel-segment-00.
> -- draft-li-spring-tunnel-segment-00 proposes the possible usecases such as 
> reduce SID stack depth of SR path, span the non-SR domain or provide 
> differentiated services. This document also proposes the difference between 
> the adjacency segment and the tunnel segment. These work will help to 
> understand the necessity and advantages of tunnel segment in some application 
> scenarios. Then we define the forwarding mechanism and protocol extensions 
> requirements on tunnel segment.
> -- draft-li-pce-tunnel-segment-00 proposes the possbile PCEP protocol 
> extensions for the tunnel segment based on draft-li-spring-tunnel-segment-00. 
> The protocol extensions are introduced for two different applications: 1. 
> PCEP extensiosn from PCC to PCE; 2. PCEP extensions from PCE to PCC. 
>  
> Hope you could have interest in these drafts, help review or refine. You 
> comments will be appreciated.
>  
>  
>  
> Thanks & Regards,
> Zhenbin (Robin)
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as a PCE WG Document

[Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)]

support.

s.

> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
> Sent: 14 September 2014 11:06
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as a PCE 
> WG Document
> 
> Dear WG,
> 
> We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting 
> draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt and this work
> has considerably progressed in other WG.
> 
> Are you in favor of adopting draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as a 
> PCE WG document ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP and 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] Adopting of draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt as PCE WG Document

[Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)]

support.

s.


> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
> Sent: 14 September 2014 11:06
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Adopting of draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt as PCE 
> WG Document
> 
> Dear WG,
> 
> We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting 
> draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt and this work
> has considerably progressed in other WG.
> 
> Are you in favor of adopting draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt as a 
> PCE WG document ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP and 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