All,
This is the start of a two week poll on making
draft-zhuang-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-05 a PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhuang-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling/
Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support"
or "no
This poll for adoption has concluded, with the result that the document will be
adopted by the PCE working group.
Authors, please resubmit this version of the draft with the new name
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-00.
Thanks
Jon
From: Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 01 June 2017 13:25
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc
All,
This is the start of a two week poll on making
draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce-03 a PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce/
Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support"
or "no/do not support". If in
Apologies for the delay. This poll has ended with the result that the document
will be adopted by the working group.
Authors, please resubmit this version of the draft as
draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-00.
Thanks
Jon
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: 25
This new version of the stateful PCE draft resolves the comments received
during IETF last call.
Thanks for your patience!
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 17 May 2017 15:47
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
C
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 16 May 2017 08:55
To: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
Hi all
Thanks for your feedback on this issue. I think we are probably in a position
to close this issue down. To summarize:
- The original intent was that the PCE MUST close the session.
- It seems that nobody has implemented the "exiting resource limit exceeded
state" notification.
On the
Hi PCE WG
I've been tidying up the stateful PCE draft to prepare it for publication and I
have discovered an inconsistency in how the stateful PCE is supposed to handle
an overflow of its per-PCC resource limit. In section 5.6 it says:
A PCE implementing a limit on the resources a single PC
All,
This is the start of a two week poll on making
draft-dhody-pce-applicability-actn-02 a PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-applicability-actn/
Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support"
or "no/do not support". I
Thanks all for your replies. This WG adoption poll has ended, with the result
that the document will be adopted by the PCE working group.
Authors, please resubmit this document as draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-00
(with no other changes).
Best regards
Jon
From: Jonathan Hardwick
make this clearer.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 11 April 2017 16:00
To: Jonathan Hardwick ; Lionel Morand
; ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Review
Hi Lionel
Many thanks for a very thorough review. I'm picking up this thread and
replying as PCE working group chair, as the authors are unavailable. I
apologise for the delay.
Please see my proposed resolutions inline below, marked with "Jon>"
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
F
Hi Mirja
Many thanks for your comment. I'm picking up this thread and replying as PCE
working group chair, as the authors are unavailable. I apologise for the delay.
It is possible for a PCC or a stateful PCE not to support updates and still to
advertise the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV. This
Hi Adrian
Many thanks for these comments. I'm picking up this thread and replying as PCE
working group chair, as the authors are unavailable. I apologise for the delay.
Please see my proposed resolutions inline below, marked with "Jon>"
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Adri
Hi Joel
Many thanks for these comments. I'm picking up this thread and replying as PCE
working group chair, as the authors are unavailable. I apologise for the delay.
Please see my proposed resolutions inline below, marked with "Jon>"
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Joel H
Dear authors
Could you please send an email to the PCE mailing list saying whether you are
aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-pceps and, if so, if it has
been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
and 5378 for more details.) If you are not aware
Hi authors
I have a few actions that I need you to take on IPR before I can submit this
draft for publication.
I see that there were two IPR disclosures against RFC 6006. I assume that
these also apply to draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis. Please could you update the IPR
system to reflect that?
Ple
All,
This is the start of a two week poll on making
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 a PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/
Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support"
or "no/do not support".
Hi Adrian
Thanks for checking. This draft depends normatively on
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, which I believe still has some actions to
be completed. Our plan is to advance both together.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adri
Hi authors
Thanks for the work on this document and for responding to the various comments
promptly. It is nearly ready to go.
The author list has grown too long. Please can you nominate some editors
instead. As I understand it, the new authors of the bis draft have no overlap
with the orig
Vasseur (j...@cisco.com)
Jonathan Hardwick (jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com)
Working Group Secretary:
Daniel King (dan...@olddog.co.uk)
Responsible AD:
Deborah Brungard (db3...@att.com)
===
Session I
===
PCE Working Group Meeting
IETF 98 (Chicago, IL)
Working Group Chairs:
Julien Meuric (julien.meu...@orange.com)
JP Vasseur (j...@cisco.com)
Jonathan Hardwick (jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com)
Working Group Secretary:
Daniel King (dan
unced and discussed, and there did seem to be consensus
behind those changes (or at least, no dissention).
Best regards
Jon
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: 28 March 2017 17:18
To: Jonathan Hardwick ; pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-iet
I also agree and I think the right thing to do is to make PCEPS a normative
reference, as Alvaro suggested. We should have PCEPS submitted for publication
in time for the Chicago meeting, so we can all "just get on with it".
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:
Dear PCE working group,
This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/
Please read the document and reply to the PCE mailing list whether you believe
this document is ready to be published, or not (includ
Dear PCE WG
You may remember that this draft was presented at the last PCE meeting in
Seoul. It fixes some straightforward but significant errata in RFC 6006. As
discussed at that meeting, since this is an uncontentious fix, we have decided
to streamline the process and adopt this document in
Hello
I am shepherding this draft, which has passed working group last call and is in
the queue for sending to the IESG. I have reviewed it to determine whether it
really is ready to be submitted to the IESG. This draft is an important piece
of work for the PCE working group and I would like
e PCE list), so we can review it.
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 09 January 2017 16:13
To: Jonathan Hardwick ; Aaron Itskovich
; pce@ietf.org; Cyril Margaria
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp
Hi,
This
be happy to give an
update in the working group meeting, by which time we do expect the draft to
have made further progress.
Best regards
Jon, JP and Julien
From: Diego R. Lopez [mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com]
Sent: 27 February 2017 12:27
To: Julien Meuric ; Jonathan Hardwick
; JP Vasseur
, please address those comments and post any
necessary updates in a version -01.
Best regards
Jon
From: Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 11 January 2017 13:45
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; 'draft-litkowski-pce-association-divers...@ietf.org'
Subject: Poll for adoption: draft-lit
Thanks Oscar. Forwarding this to the PCE list for the public record.
Best regards
Jon
From: Oscar González de Dios [mailto:oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com]
Sent: 24 January 2017 17:11
To: Jonathan Hardwick ; leeyo...@huawei.com;
ramon.casel...@cttc.es; zhangfa...@huawei.com; Cyril Margaria
adoption, please address those comments and
post any necessary updates in a version -01.
Best regards
Jon
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: 05 January 2017 15:24
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwi...@ietf.org
Forwarding for the public record.
From: Cyril Margaria [mailto:cyril.marga...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 December 2016 20:01
To: Jonathan Hardwick
Subject: Re: FW: Working group last call (including final IPR check) for
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext
Hi,
did not recall to answer:
I'm not aware o
This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity-01 a PCE working group document.
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity-01.txt
Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support"
or "no/do not support".
-
From: Aaron Itskovich [mailto:aitsk...@cisco.com]
Sent: 05 January 2017 19:30
To: Jonathan Hardwick ; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your reply.
My interpretation of the following section of the existing
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp is
Hi Aaron
Thanks for the comment. There are no procedures defined that would allow a PCE
to initiate a take-over of an LSP from a PCC. Rather, the PCC must delegate
the LSP to an appropriate PCE (if the LSP is initiated by a PCE then it must
initially be delegated to that PCE). The cases you
All,
This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 a PCE working group document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/
Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support"
or "no/d
us behind
the document is good.
Document Quality
Some implementations exist. There were a few detailed reviews during
working group last call.
Personnel
Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the
Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review o
Hi Adrian
I think your proposed new text is good. Many thanks.
Please submit the update and I will do the shepherd's report.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: 29 December 2016 18:52
To: Jonathan Hardwick
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft
This working group last call has ended. Authors, please work to address the
comments you received during the last call, and publish an updated revision of
the draft.
Best regards
Jon
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: 22 November 2016 17:31
To: pce
Hi Adrian
Thanks for the replies - see [Jon] below on the remaining discussion points.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: 02 December 2016 19:57
To: Jonathan Hardwick
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-...@ietf.org
Dear authors / PCE WG
I have reviewed this document as its shepherd and have the following comments.
Overall, I found this a very well written document, and most of the comments
are minor. My apologies for delivering these after the working group last call
has concluded.
Please let me know w
Replying as co-author - I support the adoption of this draft.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: 24 November 2016 16:04
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-association-policy
Hi all,
Though it i
Dear PCE working group,
This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-05.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/
Please read the document and reply to the PCE mailing list whether you believe
this document is ready to be published, or not (inc
===
PCE Working Group Meeting
IETF 97 (Seoul)
Working Group Chairs:
Julien Meuric (julien.meu...@orange.com)
JP Vasseur (j...@cisco.com)
Jonathan Hardwick (jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com)
Working Group Secretary:
Daniel King (dan...@olddog.co.uk
Hi Adrian
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp defines the R flag and requests IANA to create
the registry in section 8.3. Registries cannot be created during IANA early
allocation, so we need to wait for this draft to be published. (As an aside, I
believe that IANA are considering changing that
We have published the draft agenda for the upcoming PCE working group meeting
in Seoul.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda/pce/
This time, we had lots of requests for meeting time - many thanks for being
such an active working group! Unfortunately, we only have 90 minutes for the
m
Dear PCE working group,
This email starts a working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-06.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability/
Please read the document and reply to the PCE mailing list whether you believe
this document is rea
Dear PCE working group,
This email starts a working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-09.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext/
Please read the document and reply to the PCE mailing list whether you believe
this document is ready to be published, or n
There have been no objections, so this document is hereby moved from
experimental status onto the standards track. This change is already reflected
in the latest version of the draft.
Best regards
Jon
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: 26 July 2016 14:48
Hi Julien,
That would be great, thanks.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 18 August 2016 10:00
To: Jonathan Hardwick
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft
Speaking as a co-author, I support the adoption of this draft into the PCE WG.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: 12 August 2016 10:43
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-pkd-pce-pcep-yang-06
Hi all,
During the jo
Hi Julien
During this email, I'm wearing my "segment routing co-author" hat :-)
I agree that END-POINTS is not necessarily congruent with RSVP signalling
addresses, but I don't agree with the part of the proposed amendment that says
that this object should not be used for segment-routed LSPs.
Hi Chris,
Many thanks for your comments.
Prompted by Dhruv, I'm replying to the following comment, as document shepherd.
> - [6.1, 6.2] It's interesting that this text is actually replacing the
> message definition from the original specification.
[...]
> A simple way to avoid t
by several reviewers. There are several stateful PCE implementations
covering the full range of scenarios presented by this applicability
statement.
Personnel
Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the
Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the revi
Dear PCE WG
At the recent IETF meeting, the authors of the above document requested that
the document be moved from Experimental status onto the standards track. This
is in consequence of there now being multiple implementations of the H-PCE
protocol extensions, and H-PCE becoming important fo
The draft minutes for the joint MPLS/PCE/TEAS YANG meeting at IETF 96 are now
available. Please see "session II" at the link below. Thanks to all our
minute takers! Please let me know if you have any comments or corrections.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-pce
Best rega
===
PCE Working Group Meeting
IETF 96 (Berlin)
Working Group Chairs:
Julien Meuric (julien.meu...@orange.com)
JP Vasseur (j...@cisco.com)
Jonathan Hardwick (jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com)
Working Group Secretary:
Daniel King (dan...@olddog.co.uk
Ina, Robert,
The latest versions of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce and
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp posted today have addressed my comments below,
so I'll start the process for early code point allocation now.
Thanks
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.
This poll for adoption has ended and the result is that the document will be
adopted into the PCE WG.
Authors, please publish the latest version of the draft as
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-00.
Thanks
Jon
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 28 June
We have posted the agenda for the joint MPLS/PCE/TEAS meeting. The agenda is
the second session at the link below.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/agenda/pce/
If you are presenting then please send your slides to the chairs by the end of
Sunday July 17.
Best regards
Jon (on behalf of a
We have posted the agenda for the PCE meeting as below.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/agenda/pce/
Please note that we have two PCE sessions. The first session is our normal
session. The second session is a joint meeting with MPLS and TEAS to discuss
YANG models.
If you are presentin
ceive many comments on-list in the
PCE working group. It received a Performance Metrics
Directorate review.
Personnel
Jonathan Hardwick is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the
Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
th
All,
This is start of a two week poll on making draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-09
a PCE working group document. This draft fills a gap in explaining how
stateful PCE can be applied to P2MP paths.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp/
Please review the draf
Hi there
In section 8.3, we need to specify more details for IANA to create the
requested sub-registry. I suggest the following new text. You'll also need to
add an informative reference to RFC 5226.
8.3. BU Object
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "BU Object
Type
Dear authors,
Please could you confirm (on the mailing list) whether you are aware of any IPR
that applies to draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app, and if so, if it has been
disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and
5378 for more details.) If you are not aware of a
Hi there
I have reviewed this document as document shepherd. The document looks ready
to be published to me, with a few minor fixes to nits in the text, as I have
identified below.
The document has expired. Please could you make the mark-ups below and refresh
the document?
Many thanks
Jon
All,
On the agenda for Berlin, we have a session on Thursday July 21, 16:20 - 18:20
in Charlottenburg II/III. This is listed on the IETF agenda as a PCE meeting,
but it is intended as a joint MPLS/PCE/TEAS meeting for the discussion of Yang
models.
If you'd like a slot to present a Yang draft
lows.
Section 8.5
Please replace the text before the table with the following
IANA is requested to allocate new error types and error values within
the " PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP
Numbers registry, as follows.
-Original Message-
Hi Dhruv
This version looks good to me.
Thanks
Jon
From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com]
Sent: 24 June 2016 13:08
To: Jonathan Hardwick ;
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aw...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09
Hi Jo
Jon
From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com]
Sent: 24 June 2016 11:25
To: Jonathan Hardwick ;
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aw...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09
Hi Jon,
Thank you fixing the grammatical issues with the document.
O
June 2016 08:01
To: Jonathan Hardwick ;
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aw...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09
Hi Jon,
Thanks for being the shepherd and providing valuable comments.
I have attached the working copy of the document
Hi there
I have reviewed this document as document shepherd. Please consider these
comments along with any other working group last call comments that you have
received.
Best regards
Jon
General
I found a lot of mistakes in the use of English in the text. These need to be
fixed before the
The PCE chairs have requested that these two documents be merged before we poll
the working group for adoption of the resulting draft. Our rationale for this
request is below.
From: Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 06 June 2016 15:50
To: 'draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p...@ietf.org'
;
'
Dear PCE working group,
This email starts a working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/
Please read the document and send any comments you have to the PCE mailing list
no later than 21 June.
We are also p
...@huawei.com;
dan...@olddog.co.uk; Jonathan Hardwick ;
akat...@gmail.com; db3...@att.com; aret...@cisco.com; Jonathan Hardwick
; j...@cisco.com; julien.meu...@orange.com
Cc: mahendrasi...@huawei.com; pce@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7420 (4673)
The
-ietf-95-pce?useMonospaceFont=true
Cheers
Jon
PCE Working Group Meeting
IETF 95 (Buenos Aires)
===
Working Group Chairs:
Julien Meuric (julien.meu...@orange.com)
JP Vasseur (j...@cisco.com)
Jon
The final draft agenda for the PCE working group meeting has been uploaded.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/95/agenda/pce/
This is what you need to do:
*If you are presenting, please submit your slides to the WG chairs and
WG secretary (CC'ed here) by the end of Monday April 4.
*
Hi Robert
(I'm answering as WG chair.)
Sorry for the slow reply. I would expect the progress of draft-ietf-pce-pceps
through to RFC to be reasonably fast, so I'm not sure early code point
allocation should be needed. The main risk would be a conflict with the
stateful PCE drafts, should the
I have performed a document shepherd review of this draft. Here are my
comments. Please feel free to discuss.
The draft makes a good clarification to RFC 5440 and the author has taken great
care to check the impact on existing implementations.
The draft proposes to add the L bit to IRO subobj
Dear authors (Dhruv!),
Please could you confirm (on the mailing list) whether you are aware of any IPR
that applies to draft-ietf-pce-iro-update, and if so, if it has been disclosed
in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more
details.) If you are not aware o
Dear authors,
Please could you confirm (on the mailing list) whether you are aware of any IPR
that applies to draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations, and if so, if it
has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879,
3669 and 5378 for more details.) If you are not
Hi Xian
Many thanks for taking my comments on board. Please see [JEH] below for
confirmation.
Best regards
Jon
From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:zhang.x...@huawei.com]
Sent: 22 October 2015 08:34
To: Jonathan Hardwick ;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizati...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Hi there
I have performed a WG Shepherd review of this draft. Generally I found it a
well-written draft with no major issues. There are a few minor issues that I
think should be resolved.
I have divided my comments into three groups:
* technical - comments that affect the meaning of
Dear authors,
Has all IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence been disclosed
in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more
details.)
A response from each of you is required.
Best regards,
Jon, JP & Julien
Hi Girish
Thanks for the comment. I think your points are valid. We will add a
clarifying passage to the next version of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing to
address this.
Best regards
Jon (as co-author of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing)
From: Girish Birajdar [mailto:girish...@gmail.com]
Sent:
Hi Dhruv, thanks for the replies. Please see [JEH} inline below...
Cheers
Jon
From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com]
Sent: 10 September 2015 09:11
To: Jonathan Hardwick ;
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-seque...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Shepherd
Hi there
I've performed my WG shepherd review of this draft - here are my comments. I
will wait for a response from the authors and an update before preparing the
shepherd report.
Cheers
Jon
Note to WG Chairs
This document depends on two others: draft-ietf-pce-iro-update and
draft-ietf-teas
ood?
Best regards
Jon
From: rabah.gued...@orange.com [mailto:rabah.gued...@orange.com]
Sent: 26 March 2015 06:18
To: DUGEON Olivier IMT/OLN; Jonathan Hardwick; Jeff Tantsura
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@tools.ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing
Hi Jeff
I just wanted to clarify the comment that I made at the mic today as we seemed
to be talking at cross-purposes.
The draft sets a maximum SID depth in the Open message, which effectively
creates an implicit constraint on all queries that are sent over the PCEP
session, such that returne
Emile Stephan
Quintin Zhao
Daniel King
Jonathan Hardwick
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-11.txt
Pages : 64
Date: 2014-10-24
Abstract
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module
Authors : Agrahara Kiran Koushik
Emile Stephan
Quintin Zhao
Daniel King
Jonathan Hardwick
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-pcep
Yes, I'm in favour of adopting this.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: 14 September 2014 11:06
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adopting of draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt as PCE WG
Document
Dear WG,
We had
Yes, I'm in favour of adopting this.
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: 14 September 2014 11:06
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as a PCE
WG Document
Dear WG,
We had
tity table
and will get back to you on that.
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: 20 August 2014 10:42
To: Jonathan Hardwick
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pc
Tom, many thanks for your comments. See [jon]... [/jon] inline below.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
Sent: 15 August 2014 12:33
To: Jonathan Hardwick
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-...@tools.ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Regarding draft
Hi Dhruv
Thanks for the comments - see replies below (Jon> ...). I'll make sure these
are addressed in the next revision.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 31 July 2014 19:30
To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-...@tools.ietf.org
C
Hi Adrian
Many thanks for your detailed review and comments. The authors discussed your
comments on a conference call on Wednesday. I have provided our consolidated
replies below as >> ... <<.
We will produce a new version of the draft to address your comments.
Thanks again
Jon + authors
-
Element Protocol (PCEP) Management
Information Base
Authors : A S Kiran Koushik
Emile Stephan
Quintin Zhao
Daniel King
Jonathan Hardwick
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-pcep
I know of no IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:27
To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib
Dear authors of the afo
101 - 200 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
