Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Young Lee]

Support.

Thanks.
Young

2020년 12월 18일 (금) 오후 9:53, Dhruv Dhody 님이 작성:

> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>
> 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.
>
> To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
> 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>
> 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] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Adrian Farrel]

Hi,

I've reviewed this draft and I think it is ready for adoption because
the functionality (i.e., stitching segments without inter-domain
signaling which means that path-key cannot be used) is valuable.

There are a number of editorial comments below. I think they do not 
need to be addressed before adoption, but I hope the authors will factor
them into a new revision after adoption.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Need to update Young Lee's coordinates

---

Abstract

I think that BRPC or H-PCE are methods to achieve inter-domain paths
not methods to be combined with inter-domain paths. How about...
OLD
   This document specifies how to combine a Backward Recursive or
   Hierarchical method with inter-domain paths in the context of
   stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
NEW
   This document specifies how to use a Backward Recursive or
   Hierarchical method to derive inter-domain paths in the context of
   stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
END

---

Abstract

"It relies on..." comes in the sentence immediately after "This
document..."  I think you need to be more precise. Probably

s/It relies on/The mechanism relies on/

---

Abstract

s/enables to operate them/enables them to be operated/

---

Abstract

   A new Stitching Label is defined, new Path
   Setup Types, a new Association Type and a new PCEP communication
   Protocol (PCEP) Capability are considered for that purpose.

I can't parse this. Possibly...

   For this purpose, this document defines a new Stitching Label, new
   Path Setup Types, new Association Type, and a new PCEP communication
   Protocol (PCEP) Capability.

---

The requirement language should be moved into section 1.2

---

Introduction

There is a *lot* of text in the Introduction. I wonder whether we need
so much. Does every PCE document have to start with the whole history of
PCE?

I tried to boil down what this document is really about:

- PCE is used to compute paths from MPLS-TE, GMPLS, and SR
- Various mechanisms can be used to enable PCEs to cooperate to compute
  inter-domain paths including BRPC and H-PCE
- MPLS-TE and GMPLS depend on signaling using RSVP-TE to set up paths,
  but it is not common to allow signaling across administrative domain
  borders.
- SR depends on a stack of segment identifiers, but in an inter-domain
  path, this stack may become large, and detailed control of a path
  within one domain by packets originating in another domain might not 
  be supported.
- This document describes a mechanism whereby the paths across each 
  domain remain under the control of those domains, and the paths are
  stitched together at domain boundaries to form a single end-to-end
  path.
- The mechanism relies on cooperating PCEs to determine the end-to-end
  path with each PCE responsible for computing and initiating the paths
  within its domain. The PCEs are assumed to be stateful active PCEs so
  that they can instruct their networks to set up the paths. 
- Signaling (for MPLS-TE and GMPLS) is used only within individual
  domains.
- Specific labels/SIDs are used to indicate which path segments should
  be stitched together.
- To enable this mechanism, this document defines a new Stitching
  Label, new Path Setup Types, new Association Type, and a new PCEP
  communication Protocol (PCEP) Capability.

I think that can be converted into text that is a little easier to read
than the current Introduction.

---

1.1

s/end-o-end/end-to-end/

---

I think it would be helpful to have a figure that shows the solution 
architecture in more detail than that currently in section 1.1.  Nothing
wrong with that figure, but we also need to see the LSPs/SR-paths and
where the signaling stops and how the label/SID on the inter-domain link
is used. Also, how the PCEs talk to the various nodes.
 
Something like the figure below would allow the descriptive text that
follows.

--   --   --
   |Domain-A  | |Domain-B  | |Domain-C  |
   |  | |  | |  |
   | PCE--+--PCEP---+---PCE+--PCEP---+---PCE|
   |/ | |  /   | |  /   |
   |   /  | | /| | /|
   | Src=BNA---BNB1===BNB2--BNC=Dst |
   |  |  Inter- |  |  Inter- |  |
--   Domain  --   Domain  --
 Link Link


   1. The PCEs in Domain-A, Domain-B, and Domain-C communicate using
  PCEP either directly, as shown, using BRPC or with a parent PCE
  if using BRPC.
   2. The PCE in Domain-A selects an end-to-end domain path. It tells
  the PCE in Domain-B that the path will be used, and that PCE
  passes the information on to the PCE in Domain-C.
   3. Each of the PCEs use PCEP to instruct the s

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi WG,

Happy New Year!

Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>
> 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.
>
> To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
> 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv

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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi WG, Authors,

Speaking as a WG participant...

I find the functionality described in this I-D to be very useful. But,
I have one concern that I would like to be addressed before adoption
or at least get an agreement on (to be handled post-adoption).

I am not in favor of how the PST is being used in the I-D. The PST is used -
- between PCEs to indicate inter-domain TE processing
- between PCE and the head-end (2 PST for RSVP-TE & SR each, but for
inter-domain i.e also allocate and report stitching label)

We basically need a mechanism to request allocation and reporting of
stitching labels. I strongly suggest using a flag and/or a new TLV, I
find the use of PST for this inappropriate.

A weird side-effect of the current proposal is that every time we have
a new PST defined (PCECC is post-WGLC), we would need another one for
inter-domain.

Moreover, wouldn't it be better if this I-D is independent of the
per-domain path setup type? Section 6.3 allows for mixed technologies
and the protocol procedures between cooperating PCEs can be defined
such that they are independent of the per-domain path setup type to
allow for any current or future path setup types. I see no reason to
differentiate between RSVP-TE and SR (section 6.2 is all about
forwarding on border nodes, and not about PCEP).

I discussed this with the authors earlier, where we basically pushed
the can down the road, I hope we can resolve this quickly now :)

Thanks!
Dhruv
 (As a WG participant)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:23 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>
> 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.
>
> To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
> 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>
> 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] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[olivier.dugeon]

Hello Dhruv,

Thanks for your comment.

When we started writing this draft, our main goal was to propose a
mechanism for inter-domain tunnel setup in a coordinated way while
remaining operator independent. We chose to re-use as much as possible
existing PCEP objects and just proposed to request new IANA code points
within existing registries. Of course, this is just a matter of feature
encoding for stateful inter-domain.
You're right: multiplying the number of PSTs to add inter-domain to
each of them isn't a nice way forward. As the I-D is now considered as
a WG item, we are open to study any mechanism that fits WG expectations,
i.e. we fully agree to create a dedicated PCEP object, TLV or new flag
to implement it.

I think the best approach, if the draft is adopted, is to publish it as
a version -00 and then discuss the suitable mechanism as part of the WG
work to produce a version -01 specifying it.
Do you agree with this approach?

Regards

Olivier, on behalf of the authors

Le 08/01/2021 à 10:31, Dhruv Dhody a écrit :
> Hi WG, Authors,
>
> Speaking as a WG participant...
>
> I find the functionality described in this I-D to be very useful. But,
> I have one concern that I would like to be addressed before adoption
> or at least get an agreement on (to be handled post-adoption).
>
> I am not in favor of how the PST is being used in the I-D. The PST is used -
> - between PCEs to indicate inter-domain TE processing
> - between PCE and the head-end (2 PST for RSVP-TE & SR each, but for
> inter-domain i.e also allocate and report stitching label)
>
> We basically need a mechanism to request allocation and reporting of
> stitching labels. I strongly suggest using a flag and/or a new TLV, I
> find the use of PST for this inappropriate.
>
> A weird side-effect of the current proposal is that every time we have
> a new PST defined (PCECC is post-WGLC), we would need another one for
> inter-domain.
>
> Moreover, wouldn't it be better if this I-D is independent of the
> per-domain path setup type? Section 6.3 allows for mixed technologies
> and the protocol procedures between cooperating PCEs can be defined
> such that they are independent of the per-domain path setup type to
> allow for any current or future path setup types. I see no reason to
> differentiate between RSVP-TE and SR (section 6.2 is all about
> forwarding on border nodes, and not about PCEP).
>
> I discussed this with the authors earlier, where we basically pushed
> the can down the road, I hope we can resolve this quickly now :)
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>  (As a WG participant)
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:23 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
>> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
>> 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>>
>> 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
>
-- 
Orange logo 

 

Olivier Dugeon
Orange Expert, Future Networks
Open Source Referent
Orange/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/iTeQ

 

fixe : +33 2 96 07 28 80
mobile : +33 6 82 90 37 85
olivier.dug...@orange.com 


_

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] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Jeff Tantsura]

I support the adoption given points rased by Dhruv are addressed ( post 
adoption in fine)

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 8, 2021, 1:32 AM -0800, Dhruv Dhody , wrote:
> Hi WG, Authors,
>
> Speaking as a WG participant...
>
> I find the functionality described in this I-D to be very useful. But,
> I have one concern that I would like to be addressed before adoption
> or at least get an agreement on (to be handled post-adoption).
>
> I am not in favor of how the PST is being used in the I-D. The PST is used -
> - between PCEs to indicate inter-domain TE processing
> - between PCE and the head-end (2 PST for RSVP-TE & SR each, but for
> inter-domain i.e also allocate and report stitching label)
>
> We basically need a mechanism to request allocation and reporting of
> stitching labels. I strongly suggest using a flag and/or a new TLV, I
> find the use of PST for this inappropriate.
>
> A weird side-effect of the current proposal is that every time we have
> a new PST defined (PCECC is post-WGLC), we would need another one for
> inter-domain.
>
> Moreover, wouldn't it be better if this I-D is independent of the
> per-domain path setup type? Section 6.3 allows for mixed technologies
> and the protocol procedures between cooperating PCEs can be defined
> such that they are independent of the per-domain path setup type to
> allow for any current or future path setup types. I see no reason to
> differentiate between RSVP-TE and SR (section 6.2 is all about
> forwarding on border nodes, and not about PCEP).
>
> I discussed this with the authors earlier, where we basically pushed
> the can down the road, I hope we can resolve this quickly now :)
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> (As a WG participant)
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:23 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> > draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
> > 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
> >
> > 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
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Boris Khasanov]

Hi Dhruv and all,

Happy New Year too!
Thanks a lot for reminding.
I  support this draft. I like Stitching Label approach and especially, in
case of SR, the link towards EPE ( PeerNode/PeerAdj SIDs).

SY,
Boris


-Original Message-
From: Pce  On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 12:27 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs 
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

Hi WG,

Happy New Year!

Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-pce-1-introduc
tion-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for 
> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interd
> omain-04
>
> 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.
>
> To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on 
> 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>
> 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] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[olivier.dugeon]

Hello Adrian,

Thanks a lot for your thorough review and your suggestion.

We'll incorporate all of them. I just have a comment about the text with the 
proposed figure: as it describe the Backward Recursive method, I think it will 
preferable inverse order of explanation for point 3 i.e. start by domain C, 
then domain B and end with domain A.

Regards,

Olivier, on behalf of the authors

PS. Sorry for the late answer, my initial reply got stuck in the outbox.

Le 22/12/2020 à 14:37, Adrian Farrel a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I've reviewed this draft and I think it is ready for adoption because
> the functionality (i.e., stitching segments without inter-domain
> signaling which means that path-key cannot be used) is valuable.
>
> There are a number of editorial comments below. I think they do not 
> need to be addressed before adoption, but I hope the authors will factor
> them into a new revision after adoption.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> ===
>
> Need to update Young Lee's coordinates
>
> ---
>
> Abstract
>
> I think that BRPC or H-PCE are methods to achieve inter-domain paths
> not methods to be combined with inter-domain paths. How about...
> OLD
>This document specifies how to combine a Backward Recursive or
>Hierarchical method with inter-domain paths in the context of
>stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
> NEW
>This document specifies how to use a Backward Recursive or
>Hierarchical method to derive inter-domain paths in the context of
>stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
> END
>
> ---
>
> Abstract
>
> "It relies on..." comes in the sentence immediately after "This
> document..."  I think you need to be more precise. Probably
>
> s/It relies on/The mechanism relies on/
>
> ---
>
> Abstract
>
> s/enables to operate them/enables them to be operated/
>
> ---
>
> Abstract
>
>A new Stitching Label is defined, new Path
>Setup Types, a new Association Type and a new PCEP communication
>Protocol (PCEP) Capability are considered for that purpose.
>
> I can't parse this. Possibly...
>
>For this purpose, this document defines a new Stitching Label, new
>Path Setup Types, new Association Type, and a new PCEP communication
>Protocol (PCEP) Capability.
>
> ---
>
> The requirement language should be moved into section 1.2
>
> ---
>
> Introduction
>
> There is a *lot* of text in the Introduction. I wonder whether we need
> so much. Does every PCE document have to start with the whole history of
> PCE?
>
> I tried to boil down what this document is really about:
>
> - PCE is used to compute paths from MPLS-TE, GMPLS, and SR
> - Various mechanisms can be used to enable PCEs to cooperate to compute
>   inter-domain paths including BRPC and H-PCE
> - MPLS-TE and GMPLS depend on signaling using RSVP-TE to set up paths,
>   but it is not common to allow signaling across administrative domain
>   borders.
> - SR depends on a stack of segment identifiers, but in an inter-domain
>   path, this stack may become large, and detailed control of a path
>   within one domain by packets originating in another domain might not 
>   be supported.
> - This document describes a mechanism whereby the paths across each 
>   domain remain under the control of those domains, and the paths are
>   stitched together at domain boundaries to form a single end-to-end
>   path.
> - The mechanism relies on cooperating PCEs to determine the end-to-end
>   path with each PCE responsible for computing and initiating the paths
>   within its domain. The PCEs are assumed to be stateful active PCEs so
>   that they can instruct their networks to set up the paths. 
> - Signaling (for MPLS-TE and GMPLS) is used only within individual
>   domains.
> - Specific labels/SIDs are used to indicate which path segments should
>   be stitched together.
> - To enable this mechanism, this document defines a new Stitching
>   Label, new Path Setup Types, new Association Type, and a new PCEP
>   communication Protocol (PCEP) Capability.
>
> I think that can be converted into text that is a little easier to read
> than the current Introduction.
>
> ---
>
> 1.1
>
> s/end-o-end/end-to-end/
>
> ---
>
> I think it would be helpful to have a figure that shows the solution 
> architecture in more detail than that currently in section 1.1.  Nothing
> wrong with that figure, but we also need to see the LSPs/SR-paths and
> where the signaling stops and how the label/SID on the inter-domain link
> is used. Also, how the PCEs talk to the various nodes.
>  
> Something like the figure below would allow the descriptive text that
> follows.
>
> --   --   --
>|Domain-A  | |Domain-B  | |Domain-C  |
>|  | |  | |  |
>| PCE--+--PCEP---+---PCE+--PCEP---+---PCE|
>|/ | |  /   | |  /   |

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi WG,

The response has been limited so far. Thanks to Oliver for responding
to the comments.

Since the adoption period coincided with holidays, we are extending
the adoption call for another week (i.e. Monday 18th Jan). We *need*
to hear from more of you before taking a call. Please respond with
your support (or not) for this work and if this I-D is a good basis to
be further refined under the control of the WG.

Regards,
Dhruv

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> > draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
> > 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dhruv

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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Daniele Ceccarelli]

Hi Dhruv, Julien,

Thanks for extending the deadline. 
I support the adoption of the draft. Inter domain stateful PCE capabilities are 
extremely important in the provisioning of end to end services. (tried a work 
around to avoid mentioning network slicing) .

BR
Daniele  

-Original Message-
From: Pce  On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: den 12 januari 2021 11:38
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs 
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

Hi WG,

The response has been limited so far. Thanks to Oliver for responding to the 
comments.

Since the adoption period coincided with holidays, we are extending the 
adoption call for another week (i.e. Monday 18th Jan). We *need* to hear from 
more of you before taking a call. Please respond with your support (or not) for 
this work and if this I-D is a good basis to be further refined under the 
control of the WG.

Regards,
Dhruv

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-pce-1-in
> troduction-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > This email begins the WG adoption poll for 
> > draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-inte
> > rdomain-04
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end 
> > on 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
> >
> > 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] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)]

Hi Dhruv, all,
Thanks for extending the adoption call.

Yes/support. 
I think it is very useful document addressing a usual difficult topic of 
inter-domain path computation and e2e service setup. 

Thanks
Sergio

-Original Message-
From: Pce  On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:38 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs 
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

Hi WG,

The response has been limited so far. Thanks to Oliver for responding to the 
comments.

Since the adoption period coincided with holidays, we are extending the 
adoption call for another week (i.e. Monday 18th Jan). We *need* to hear from 
more of you before taking a call. Please respond with your support (or not) for 
this work and if this I-D is a good basis to be further refined under the 
control of the WG.

Regards,
Dhruv

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-pce-1-in
> troduction-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > This email begins the WG adoption poll for 
> > draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-inte
> > rdomain-04
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end 
> > on 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
> >
> > 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] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Gyan Mishra]

Hi Dhruv and authors

Happy New Year!!

I support WG adoption of this critical topic and complex problem for
operators of inter domain path computation using this innovative stitching
label to accomplish the task.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:47 AM Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <
sergio.belo...@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv, all,
> Thanks for extending the adoption call.
>
> Yes/support.
> I think it is very useful document addressing a usual difficult topic of
> inter-domain path computation and e2e service setup.
>
> Thanks
> Sergio
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pce  On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:38 AM
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Cc: pce-chairs 
> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>
> Hi WG,
>
> The response has been limited so far. Thanks to Oliver for responding to
> the comments.
>
> Since the adoption period coincided with holidays, we are extending the
> adoption call for another week (i.e. Monday 18th Jan). We *need* to hear
> from more of you before taking a call. Please respond with your support (or
> not) for this work and if this I-D is a good basis to be further refined
> under the control of the WG.
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-pce-1-in
> > troduction-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi WG,
> > >
> > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> > > draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-inte
> > > rdomain-04
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end
> > > on 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
> > >
> > > 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
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Luis M. Contreras]

Hi all,

I support the adoption of the draft. It provides a suitable solution
for the very relevant topic of inter-domain constrained path setup, which
will become even more relevant in the next future.

Best regards

Luis


El vie, 15 ene 2021 a las 6:02, Gyan Mishra ()
escribió:

>
> Hi Dhruv and authors
>
> Happy New Year!!
>
> I support WG adoption of this critical topic and complex problem for
> operators of inter domain path computation using this innovative stitching
> label to accomplish the task.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:47 AM Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <
> sergio.belo...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dhruv, all,
>> Thanks for extending the adoption call.
>>
>> Yes/support.
>> I think it is very useful document addressing a usual difficult topic of
>> inter-domain path computation and e2e service setup.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sergio
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pce  On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:38 AM
>> To: pce@ietf.org
>> Cc: pce-chairs 
>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for
>> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> The response has been limited so far. Thanks to Oliver for responding to
>> the comments.
>>
>> Since the adoption period coincided with holidays, we are extending the
>> adoption call for another week (i.e. Monday 18th Jan). We *need* to hear
>> from more of you before taking a call. Please respond with your support (or
>> not) for this work and if this I-D is a good basis to be further refined
>> under the control of the WG.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dhruv
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi WG,
>> >
>> > Happy New Year!
>> >
>> > Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-pce-1-in
>> > troduction-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi WG,
>> > >
>> > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for
>> > > draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>> > >
>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-inte
>> > > rdomain-04
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end
>> > > on 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>> > >
>> > > 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
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>


-- 
___
Luis M. Contreras
contreras.i...@gmail.com
luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[julien.meuric]

Hi all,

Co-author hat on, I support the adoption the I-D and second Olivier in
agreeing with Dhruv's point.

Cheers,

Julien


On 12/01/2021 11:38, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> The response has been limited so far. Thanks to Oliver for responding
> to the comments.
>
> Since the adoption period coincided with holidays, we are extending
> the adoption call for another week (i.e. Monday 18th Jan). We *need*
> to hear from more of you before taking a call. Please respond with
> your support (or not) for this work and if this I-D is a good basis to
> be further refined under the control of the WG.
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> Just a reminder, the WG Adoption poll ends on Monday 11th Jan, 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://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-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 Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>>> Hi WG,
>>>
>>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
>>> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
>>> 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Dhruv
> 


_

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] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi WG,

Thanks to all who responded to the adoption poll. We have support to
adopt this as a WG item. Please continue to provide your comments as
the document moves through the WG process.

Authors, please post a -00 version
'draft-ietf-pce-stateful-interdomain-00' with only the name/date
change, and be sure to set the "replaces" option during submission.

Looking forward to -01 that handles the comments received and move the
work forward.

Thanks!
PCE Chairs

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:22 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
>
> 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.
>
> To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
> 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv

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