Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi WG, The WG adoption poll is closed, the response was less than what we would have liked. The responses were all supportive without any objections. All authors have responded to the IPR check. We can adopt it as a WG document. There is a suggestion on the table to make things generic from Pavan, we request authors to discuss this with Pavan (preferably on the list). Hi Authors, Please post 'draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00' when the submission is allowed again with no other change. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:10 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for > draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 > > 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Dhruv, Hi! Yes, RFC5420 is the correct reference. I was referring to how the “Attribute Flags TLV” is processed when present in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects. A similar approach can be employed for the PCEP LSPA object. This would need us to (a) Introduce a new flags TLV and (b) Introduce a new LSPA_REQUIRED/LSPA_ENFORCED object that can carry this TLV when needed. This can be done now or later when there are more flags defined. Regards, -Pavan On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 8:03 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi Pavan, > > Thanks for participating in the adoption call. Some clarification > questions... > > Could you point the WG to the right reference in RSVP-TE? Is it RFC 5420? > > The Stateful-PCE-optional draft is a generic mechanism to mark whole > PCEP objects as mandatory and optional to process. You are right that > it doesn't cover local protection enforcement at the granularity of > the per-attribute in the LSPA object. Please confirm if my > understanding is correct? > > Note that there is a single flag defined in the LSPA object so far, so > generalizing would help a future flag when and if it gets added. Could > you suggest what change you would make to turn this procedure generic? > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 6:06 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram > wrote: > > > > Support adoption! The draft addresses a hole in the existing protection > toolkit. > > > > It would however be useful to have a generic way of requesting or > mandating each LSP/path attribute (similar to RSVP LSP/HOP attributes). I > haven't read draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional, but I'm assuming that > it doesn't cover local protection enforcement. > > > > Regards, > > -Pavan > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > >> > >> Hi WG, > >> > >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for > >> draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > >> > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 > >> > >> 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). > >> > >> 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] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi Pavan, Thanks for participating in the adoption call. Some clarification questions... Could you point the WG to the right reference in RSVP-TE? Is it RFC 5420? The Stateful-PCE-optional draft is a generic mechanism to mark whole PCEP objects as mandatory and optional to process. You are right that it doesn't cover local protection enforcement at the granularity of the per-attribute in the LSPA object. Please confirm if my understanding is correct? Note that there is a single flag defined in the LSPA object so far, so generalizing would help a future flag when and if it gets added. Could you suggest what change you would make to turn this procedure generic? Thanks! Dhruv On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 6:06 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote: > > Support adoption! The draft addresses a hole in the existing protection > toolkit. > > It would however be useful to have a generic way of requesting or mandating > each LSP/path attribute (similar to RSVP LSP/HOP attributes). I haven't read > draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional, but I'm assuming that it doesn't cover > local protection enforcement. > > Regards, > -Pavan > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> >> Hi WG, >> >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for >> draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 >> >> 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). >> >> 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] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Support adoption! The draft addresses a hole in the existing protection toolkit. It would however be useful to have a generic way of requesting or mandating each LSP/path attribute (similar to RSVP LSP/HOP attributes). I haven't read draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional, but I'm assuming that it doesn't cover local protection enforcement. Regards, -Pavan On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for > draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 > > 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). > > 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] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi All, I support the adoption of this draft. There have been recent discussions in the Spring WG on the desire to indicate the nature of protection for SRTE paths and this draft proposes a useful mechanism for signalling of the same. Thanks, Ketan -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 21 October 2020 19:11 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). 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] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi Tarek, There is a proposal [1] to extend the support for the P (Processing-Rule) and I (Ignore) flag in the common object header (of PCEP objects, originally from RFC 5440) to stateful PCEP messages. Do check it out and let the WG know if that covers what you have in mind. Thanks! Dhruv [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional/ On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:44 PM Tarek Saad wrote: > > I believe the issue the draft is tackling is useful and I support adoption. I > also believe the idea of "enforcing" a constraint can be generalized (e.g. to > other constraints). Ideally, we can consider an approach that can be extended > to other constraints in future too. > > Regards, > Tarek > > On 10/21/20, 5:14 PM, "Pce on behalf of Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" > wrote: > > Hello, > > As co-author, I support the adoption. Document describes various use case > needs, has implementations, and has been updated based on existing feedback. > Would be good to have adopted to move to early IANA codepoint allocations to > allow implementation to progress further, as well as further WG refinement. > > Thank you > Andrew > > On 2020-10-21, 9:41 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" > wrote: > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for > draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 > > 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). > > 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 ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
I believe the issue the draft is tackling is useful and I support adoption. I
also believe the idea of "enforcing" a constraint can be generalized (e.g. to
other constraints). Ideally, we can consider an approach that can be extended
to other constraints in future too.
Regards,
Tarek
On 10/21/20, 5:14 PM, "Pce on behalf of Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)"
wrote:
Hello,
As co-author, I support the adoption. Document describes various use case
needs, has implementations, and has been updated based on existing feedback.
Would be good to have adopted to move to early IANA codepoint allocations to
allow implementation to progress further, as well as further WG refinement.
Thank you
Andrew
On 2020-10-21, 9:41 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody"
wrote:
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02
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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday).
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
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi WG, Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 9th Nov, please respond to the call with your support (or not), comments, etc. Please be more vocal on the list [1]. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien [1] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-pce-1-introduction-01 > Please be Vocal > > o During WG Adoption and WG LC calls, the response is less. > > o Please be vocal on the list to help us gauge the consensus better. > > o The working group mailing lists are looked at by the IESG, IAB, and others (internal and external to IETF) to determine interest/participation level in our standards process. > > o Please review ideas from your peers, these are community outputs of the working group as a whole. > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:10 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for > draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 > > 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi WG, I support WG adoption of this draft (as co-author). Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:11 PM Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. Hi WG, I support the WG adoption of this draft. Thanks, Rakesh On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:43 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi, I have read the latest version of this document and I support WG adoption. It's useful for finer control of TI-LFA protection for SR-TE Policy. Thanks, Mike. -Original Message- From: Pce mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:41 AM To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien ___ 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] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi WG, I support the WG adoption of this draft. Thanks, Rakesh On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:43 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) wrote: > Hi, > > I have read the latest version of this document and I support WG adoption. > It's useful for finer control of TI-LFA protection for SR-TE Policy. > > Thanks, > Mike. > > -Original Message- > From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:41 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for > draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for > draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 > > 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). > > 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] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi, I have read the latest version of this document and I support WG adoption. It's useful for finer control of TI-LFA protection for SR-TE Policy. Thanks, Mike. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:41 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). 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
[Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 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 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). Thanks! Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
