Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Dear WG, This LC has ended. Some comments have been discussed on the list: authors, please resolve them and publish a revised document accordingly. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien On 05/08/2020 18:18, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote: > Hi all, > > This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and > share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. > This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). > > Please note that this I-D is related to > draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our > WG adoption queue. > > Thanks, > > Dhruv & Julien > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Support this useful draft. Thanks, Siva -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 12:19 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi Julien, I support the WG LC of the draft. Have no objection with the current status of the draft. Warm regards, Luc-Fabrice Ndifor Specialist - IP Access and Data center luc-fabrice.ndi...@mtn.com T +237 677 55 02 13 Head Office: 360, Rue Drouot P.O. Box 15 574 Douala, Cameroon T +237 679 00 90 90 | mtn.cm This email is confidential. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its content to any other person as to do so could be a breach of confidentiality. Please be informed that no employee or agent is authorized to conclude any legally binding agreement on behalf of MTN Cameroon via email. This can be only done if the email is confirmed explicitly in writing by an MTN Cameroon authorized officer. In no event will this email or its content be construed as a written approval. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 5:19 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
ate CCI instances. > > [WAJ] Separate CCI instances requires the binding function on the devices. > How to avoid the problem when the CCI instances can’t be bound together? For > example, the PCE download two out label, no in label, or vice versa? > > [DD] I discussed this with Shuping and she has added explicit text to handle this now via error messages. The "binding" is in the PCInitiate message itself which includes the LSP object and then multiple CCI objects are included. Thanks! Dhruv > > > > Best Regards, > > Shuping > > > > Best Regards > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > julien.meu...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:19 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller > > > > Hi all, > > > > This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share > your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. > > This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). > > > > Please note that this I-D is related to > > draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG > adoption queue. > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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 ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Bravo! :) Thank you, Adrian! Best regards, Shuping 发件人：Adrian Farrel 收件人：Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) ;julien.meuric ;pce 抄 送：draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller 时 间：2020-08-18 19:25:23 主 题：RE: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller That's super-fast work, Shuping. Thanks. I skimmed through the changes and checked the ones where I had asked questions. Everything looks good. I can now fully support the last call. Best, Adrian -Original Message- From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) Sent: 18 August 2020 12:08 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-control...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Dear Adrian, Many thanks for your detailed review and comments. Please find the diff with our updates to the draft according to your comments. Hope we have addressed them properly. https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-e xtension-for-pce-controller-06=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvd hody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-07.txt We have also updated Chao Zhou's email address in the draft. Thank you! Best regards, Shuping > -Original Message- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 12:15 AM > To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-control...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE WG LC for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller > > Hi Julien, WG, authors, > > I'm listed as one of the eight Contributors to this document, although my > affiliation should read "Old Dog Consulting". > > I was a co-author of RFC 8283, so I am generally glad to see protocol work > addressing this space. > > This document is almost ready to progress, but there are quite a few nits > that we should take care of before asking to advance the document. > After that's done, I support this document being published as an RFC. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > === > > Figures > > If you make the table in Section 5.2 into "Figure 1" then you will not need to > renumber Figure 2. > > All figures should have a caption such as you have for Figure 2. > > All figures should be mentioned explicitly in the text. Thus, instead of saying > "as shown below" you should say "as shown in Figure 2". This is important > because: > - it helps the RFC Editor check that you are using all of the figures > - it protects the text from edits that might move it around in relation > to the figure. > > --- > > Abstract > > s/(G)MPLS/MPLS and GMPLS/ > s/PCEP protocol extensions/PCEP extensions/ > > --- > > Introduction > > s/draft specify/document specifies/ > > --- > > Introduction > >The extension for PCECC in Segment Routing (SR) is specified in a >separate draft [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. > > This paragraph is, of course, completely true. But it is absolutely unclear > what it is doing here. There has been no previous discussion of SR in the > document, and the only other mention of SR is in 5.5.9. I think we can > probably do without this paragraph. > > --- > > 2. > > OLD >Terminologies used in this document is same as described in the draft >[RFC8283]. > NEW >Terminology used in this document is that same as that described in >[RFC8283]. > END > > --- > > 3. > > OLD >it is assumed that label range to be used NEW >it is assumed that the label range to be used END > > OLD >A future extension could add this capability NEW >A future extension could add the capability END > > OLD >This document also allow a case where the label space is maintained >by PCC itself > NEW >This document also allows a case where the label space is maintained >by the PCC itself > END > > --- > > 4. > > OLD >Following key requirements associated PCECC should be considered > when >designing the PCECC based solution: > NEW >The following key requirements should be considered when >designing the PCECC based solution: > END > > --- > > 5.3 > s/This document specify/This document specifies/ s//new CCI > object-type/new CCI object-types/ > > --- > > 5.4 > s/During PCEP Initialization Phase/During the PCEP Initialization Phase/ > s/Path is setup/Path is set up/ s/sub-TLV in PCC's/sub-TLV in a PCC's/ s/PCE's > OPEN message/a PCE's OPEN message/ > > --- > > 5.4 > >If the PCEP >Speakers support the extensions of this draft but did not
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Dear Adrian, Many thanks for your detailed review and comments. Please find the diff with our updates to the draft according to your comments. Hope we have addressed them properly. https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-07.txt We have also updated Chao Zhou's email address in the draft. Thank you! Best regards, Shuping > -Original Message- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 12:15 AM > To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-control...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE WG LC for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller > > Hi Julien, WG, authors, > > I'm listed as one of the eight Contributors to this document, although my > affiliation should read "Old Dog Consulting". > > I was a co-author of RFC 8283, so I am generally glad to see protocol work > addressing this space. > > This document is almost ready to progress, but there are quite a few nits > that we should take care of before asking to advance the document. > After that's done, I support this document being published as an RFC. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > === > > Figures > > If you make the table in Section 5.2 into "Figure 1" then you will not need to > renumber Figure 2. > > All figures should have a caption such as you have for Figure 2. > > All figures should be mentioned explicitly in the text. Thus, instead of > saying > "as shown below" you should say "as shown in Figure 2". This is important > because: > - it helps the RFC Editor check that you are using all of the figures > - it protects the text from edits that might move it around in relation > to the figure. > > --- > > Abstract > > s/(G)MPLS/MPLS and GMPLS/ > s/PCEP protocol extensions/PCEP extensions/ > > --- > > Introduction > > s/draft specify/document specifies/ > > --- > > Introduction > >The extension for PCECC in Segment Routing (SR) is specified in a >separate draft [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. > > This paragraph is, of course, completely true. But it is absolutely unclear > what it is doing here. There has been no previous discussion of SR in the > document, and the only other mention of SR is in 5.5.9. I think we can > probably do without this paragraph. > > --- > > 2. > > OLD >Terminologies used in this document is same as described in the draft >[RFC8283]. > NEW >Terminology used in this document is that same as that described in >[RFC8283]. > END > > --- > > 3. > > OLD >it is assumed that label range to be used NEW >it is assumed that the label range to be used END > > OLD >A future extension could add this capability NEW >A future extension could add the capability END > > OLD >This document also allow a case where the label space is maintained >by PCC itself > NEW >This document also allows a case where the label space is maintained >by the PCC itself > END > > --- > > 4. > > OLD >Following key requirements associated PCECC should be considered > when >designing the PCECC based solution: > NEW >The following key requirements should be considered when >designing the PCECC based solution: > END > > --- > > 5.3 > s/This document specify/This document specifies/ s//new CCI > object-type/new CCI object-types/ > > --- > > 5.4 > s/During PCEP Initialization Phase/During the PCEP Initialization Phase/ > s/Path is setup/Path is set up/ s/sub-TLV in PCC's/sub-TLV in a PCC's/ s/PCE's > OPEN message/a PCE's OPEN message/ > > --- > > 5.4 > >If the PCEP >Speakers support the extensions of this draft but did not advertise >this capability attempts a PCECC operation then a PCErr message with >Error-Type=19(Invalid Operation) and Error-Value=TBD3 (Attempted >PCECC operations when PCECC capability was not advertised) will be >generated and the PCEP session will be terminated. > > This is good. But you also need to include what happens if an > implementation that does not understand these extensions receives one. > I suspect you can do this with a reference to another document. > > --- > > There are a couple of cases of s/a LSP/an LSP/ > > --- > > 5.5.1 > > s/based on PCECC mechanism/based on the PCECC mechanism/ > s/LSP-IDENTIFIER TLV MUST/An LSP-IDENT
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi, Shuping: Please see the responses inline, wish to see the update of the draft soon. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) [mailto:pengshup...@huawei.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 7:46 PM To: Aijun Wang ; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi Aijun, Thank you for your comments! Please find the responses in line below. From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aijun Wang Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 5:42 PM To: julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> ; pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi，Dhruv, Julien and authors of this draft: I reviewed this draft and had the following comments for its WG LC: 1. Generally speaking, I support the direction that stated also in the draft as "A PCE-based central controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it." [Shuping] Thank you for your support. 2. This draft states it focuses on LSP Path central control, but I think the procedures described in this draft is common to other CCI object(which may be defined in other documents). So would it be better to generalize the procedures? The specific part for other path type may be only the CCI objects. This can facilitate the extension of PCECC procedure in other scenario. [Shuping] Yes, you are right. We can add some text in the introduction to make it clear that though this document focuses on the basic PCECC LSP mode for the static LSPs, the procedures defined are generic enough to be used by other PCECC extensions. [WAJ] Not only the introduction part, but also the following procedures. It is better to generalize the (section 5 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce -controller-06#section-5> ), not strictly limit within the LSP path. 3. Section-5.5.1of this draft <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controlle r-06#section-5.5.1> describes the “Basic PCECC LSP Setup”, which is based on the LSP delegation mode. But for LSP delegate mode, the LSP must exist beforehand, which is constructed via the distributed protocol(RSVP etc.). In such scenario, is it necessary to allocate the Label via the PCE? [Shuping] This is similar to the case for RFC 8664 where a PCC-initiated SR path is delegated to the PCE. It is not mandatory for the path (label-stack) to be "constructed" beforehand. [WAJ] For the PCC-initiated SR path, only the headend need to be touched. It is different from the scenario described in Figure 2. 4. I think the most useful scenario for PCECC should be based on “PCE Initiate” message, which is used to initiate one new path from the PCE, together with the label allocation. [Shuping] I agree. 5. Similar consideration is for the “PCC allocation label”. What the reason to let the PCC allocate such label? Why can’t PCE allocate such information for each PCC from its appointed label space? [Shuping] It was suggested to be added because in some cases PCC may not be able to allocate a part of its label space for PCE to control and it would want to control the full label-space allocation. [WAJ] In such situation, we think the distributed only label allocation is fine. The PCE should not intervene this process. Adding PCE in the network should simplify the procedures, not make it complex. 6. For definition of CCI object, will it simplify the overall procedures if the CCI object for MPLS label includes both the IN and OUT label together? [Shuping] At the ingress, we would only have out-label, and at the egress, we would only have an in-label. In case of P2MP branch nodes, we would have one in-label and many out-labels as described in another I-D. For these reasons, we decided to have them as separate CCI instances. [WAJ] Separate CCI instances requires the binding function on the devices. How to avoid the problem when the CCI instances can’t be bound together? For example, the PCE download two out label, no in label, or vice versa? Best Regards, Shuping Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -Original Message- From: pce-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:19 AM To: pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback,
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi Dhruv and Julien, I read the draft and support it along with PCECC work. It is important to define those extensions, the degree of details is good. SY, Boris -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 7:19 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
p an LSP based/ s/included in LSP object/included in the LSP object/ (twice) s/New PCEP object/A new PCEP object/ --- 5.5.2.2 If the PCC receives a PCInitiate message but does not recognize the label in the CCI, the PCC MUST generate a PCErr message with Error- Type 19(Invalid operation) and Error-Value=TBD8, "Unknown Label" and MUST include the SRP object to specify the error is for the corresponding label cleanup (via PCInitiate message). This is OK as a choice, but I wonder why you need to report this as an error. The intention of the request is to make sure that the label in the CCI is removed from the PCC. If the label is not recognised, isn't this the right result meaning that the answer should be a positive response? I'm not saying you must change this, but please consider it. --- 5.5.3 s/In order to setup/In order to set up/ OLD The PCC responds with first PCRpt message with the status as "GOING-UP" and assigned PLSP-ID. NEW The PCC responds with a PCRpt message with the status set to "GOING-UP" and carrying the assigned PLSP-ID. END s/from PCECC are send/from PCECC are sent/ s/setup operations are/setup operations are the/ s/LSP is same as/LSP is the same as/ s/the PCE SHOULD send the/the PCE SHOULD send a/ s/In case where/In the case where/ s/label allocation are made/label allocations are made/ --- 5.5.3 In case where the label allocation are made by the PCC itself (see Section 5.5.8), the procedure remains similar. Do you mean "remains similar" or "is the same"? If it is only similar then you need to describe how it is different. --- 5.5.4 ` s/modification of PCECC/modification of a PCECC/ s/In case where/In the case where/ s/label allocation are made/label allocations are made/ --- 5.5.4 In case where the label allocation are made by the PCC itself (see Section 5.5.8), the procedure remains similar. Same question as 5.5.3 --- 5.5.5 s/control over the/control over an/ s/In case of/In the case of a/ --- 5.5.9 s/the PCE via PCRpt message as per/the PCE via a PCRpt message as per/ --- 5.5.9 The PCECC capability MUST be exchanged on the PCEP session, before PCE could allocate binding label. Maybe turn this around to read... Before a PCE can allocate a binding label the PCECC capability MUST be exchanged on the PCEP session. --- 6.1 OLD the message has been extended as shown below NEW this document extends the message as shown below END --- Either in 6.1 or in section 2, you should include something like The message formats in this document are specified using Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding as specified in [RFC5511]. And obviously add a reference to 5511. --- 6.1 c/At max two instances/At most two instances/ --- 7.1 s/defines a new optional TLVs/defines new optional TLVs/ --- 7.1.1 OLD No flags are assigned right now. NEW No flags are defined in this document. END --- 7.3 OLD Currently, the following flag bit is defined: NEW Currently, the following flag bits are defined: END s/A PCE set this bit/A PCE sets this bit/ --- 11.3 Can you add to the definition of this registry what the size is? I think there are 32 bits available. --- 11.4 I think the name of this section is wrong. you are not creating a new registry in this section. --- 11.6 You should say how many bits this registry can track. I think it is 16. --- 11.7 It's not too important, but it might be nice to order this list by increasing error type. -Original Message----- From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: 05 August 2020 17:19 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi Aijun, Thank you for your comments! Please find the responses in line below. From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aijun Wang Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 5:42 PM To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi，Dhruv, Julien and authors of this draft: I reviewed this draft and had the following comments for its WG LC: 1. Generally speaking, I support the direction that stated also in the draft as "A PCE-based central controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it." [Shuping] Thank you for your support. 2. This draft states it focuses on LSP Path central control, but I think the procedures described in this draft is common to other CCI object(which may be defined in other documents). So would it be better to generalize the procedures? The specific part for other path type may be only the CCI objects. This can facilitate the extension of PCECC procedure in other scenario. [Shuping] Yes, you are right. We can add some text in the introduction to make it clear that though this document focuses on the basic PCECC LSP mode for the static LSPs, the procedures defined are generic enough to be used by other PCECC extensions. 3. Section-5.5.1of this draft<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06#section-5.5.1> describes the “Basic PCECC LSP Setup”, which is based on the LSP delegation mode. But for LSP delegate mode, the LSP must exist beforehand, which is constructed via the distributed protocol(RSVP etc.). In such scenario, is it necessary to allocate the Label via the PCE? [Shuping] This is similar to the case for RFC 8664 where a PCC-initiated SR path is delegated to the PCE. It is not mandatory for the path (label-stack) to be "constructed" beforehand. 4. I think the most useful scenario for PCECC should be based on “PCE Initiate” message, which is used to initiate one new path from the PCE, together with the label allocation. [Shuping] I agree. 5. Similar consideration is for the “PCC allocation label”. What the reason to let the PCC allocate such label? Why can’t PCE allocate such information for each PCC from its appointed label space? [Shuping] It was suggested to be added because in some cases PCC may not be able to allocate a part of its label space for PCE to control and it would want to control the full label-space allocation. 6. For definition of CCI object, will it simplify the overall procedures if the CCI object for MPLS label includes both the IN and OUT label together? [Shuping] At the ingress, we would only have out-label, and at the egress, we would only have an in-label. In case of P2MP branch nodes, we would have one in-label and many out-labels as described in another I-D. For these reasons, we decided to have them as separate CCI instances. Best Regards, Shuping Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -Original Message- From: pce-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com<mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:19 AM To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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. ___
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi all, I support the adoption. The mechanism supports a convenient communication between the PCE and PCCs. Best Regards Zongpeng Du duzongp...@foxmail.com & duzongp...@chinamobile.com From: julien.meu...@orange.com Date: 2020-08-06 00:18 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi，Dhruv, Julien and authors of this draft: I reviewed this draft and had the following comments for its WG LC: 1. Generally speaking, I support the direction that stated also in the draft as "A PCE-based central controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it." 2. This draft states it focuses on LSP Path central control, but I think the procedures described in this draft is common to other CCI object(which may be defined in other documents). So would it be better to generalize the procedures? The specific part for other path type may be only the CCI objects. This can facilitate the extension of PCECC procedure in other scenario. 3. Section-5.5.1of this draft <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controlle r-06#section-5.5.1> describes the “Basic PCECC LSP Setup”, which is based on the LSP delegation mode. But for LSP delegate mode, the LSP must exist beforehand, which is constructed via the distributed protocol(RSVP etc.). In such scenario, is it necessary to allocate the Label via the PCE? 4. I think the most useful scenario for PCECC should be based on “PCE Initiate” message, which is used to initiate one new path from the PCE, together with the label allocation. 5. Similar consideration is for the “PCC allocation label”. What the reason to let the PCC allocate such label? Why can’t PCE allocate such information for each PCC from its appointed label space? 6. For definition of CCI object, will it simplify the overall procedures if the CCI object for MPLS label includes both the IN and OUT label together? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -Original Message- From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:19 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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 <mailto:Pce@ietf.org> Pce@ietf.org <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Support. Regards, Peng Liu Peng Liu | 刘鹏 China Mobile | 移动研究院 mobile phone：13810146105 email: liupeng...@chinamobile.com 发件人: julien.meuric 时间: 2020/08/06(星期四)00:18 收件人: pce; 主题: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controllerHi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Support. Best Regards, Cong Li From: julien.meu...@orange.com Date: 2020-08-06 00:18 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Support. Best Regards, Shunwan -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:19 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Support. Best Regards, Huaimo From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 12:18 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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
[Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, 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
