Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Hi all, It is time to close this poll. Despite Adrian's reminder (Feb 1), no one has voiced about the I-D. Even though nobody objected to the adoption, the expressed support is very limited. As a result, we believe that the WG is not ready to work on this item now and the draft is not adopted. Thanks to the authors who put some effort the propose that work. Regards, AD&J On 13/12/2018 14:05, Julien Meuric wrote: > Dear WG, > > We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times > during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read > it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a > feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of > draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) > > Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. > > Thanks > > Julien > > > P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but > an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors > focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _ 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
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
All, I read the draft this morning and have no objections, per se. There is obviously a lot of editorial work to be done, but that is fine and normal at this stage. The main challenge I found was determining exactly what the purpose of the extensions was. I would welcome a clearer statement up front about why these extensions are needed and what they will enable to happen. I didn't really get this until reading Section 3 and then 5.1. Nit to fix soonish. In 2.1 you have "priority >= p" forgetting the joy in RFC 3209 that the highest priority has the lowest numeric value. Thanks, Adrian -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: 13 December 2018 13:05 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. ___ 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 Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Support for WG adoption. I provided higher level comments to the -00 version, which were incorporated. There is still work to be done, that can be undertaken post WG adoption (some listed below). Regards, Dhruv To Do - Introduction should be section 1 - Remove reference to BANDWIDTH object in section 3 - Reference to (or rather re-use of Unreserved Bandwidth well defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.5.8) in section 2.1 - Reference to (or rather re-use of Residual Bandwidth well defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7471#section-4.5.3) in section 2.2 - We can only define 'path' level and reuse 'link' level description from IGP - IDNITs - https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01.txt - I am listed as co-author, may be move me to acknowledgement/contributor -- Dhruv Dhody Lead Architect Network Business Line Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560066 Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext 71583 II Email: dhruv.dh...@huawei.com This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric > Sent: 13 December 2018 18:35 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw > > Dear WG, > > We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during > past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked > quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from > the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as > a starting point for a PCE work item? > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) > > Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. > > Thanks > > Julien > > > P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an > adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors > focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. > > ___ > 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 Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Hi, Yes, Support. Thanks. Young (co-author) -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 7:05 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. ___ 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 Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw
Hi Julien, Thanks for starting this. I believe the feedbacks collected after the first discussions significantly improved the scope of the draft, making it narrow, simple and straight forward. This is a minor extension to PCEP that allows a better exchange of path computation results, particularly in an hierarchical environment. Yes, I would be happy to see this work proceeding. Thanks, Daniele -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: den 13 december 2018 14:05 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw Dear WG, We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item? (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01) Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support. Thanks Julien P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
