Re: [Pce] IPR Poll for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-16

...@cisco.com; victor.lopezalva...@telefonica.com; younglee...@gmail.com; zhenghaom...@huawei.com; Oscar González de Dios CC: pce@ietf.org Asunto: IPR Poll for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-16 Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC on this draft, I'd like all authors and contributors

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional

Dear WG chairs, I think the document is ready to become a PCE WG Item and it addresses a relevant and useful topic. @authors, please find also some comments: After reading the full document it becomes clear how a PCEP peer can mark some objects as optional using the P

Re: [Pce] Question about Originator Address in draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

p; endpoint absolutely need to be part of the Extended Association TLV or could they have their own TLV? Best Regards, Oscar De: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) Enviado el: viernes, 17 de septiembre de 2021 19:01 Para: Oscar González de Dios ; pce@ietf

[Pce] Question about Originator Address in draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

Dear PCE WG & draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp authors, I have one (easy) question about the SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers TLV in section 5.2.2. "Originator Address: Represented as 128 bit value where IPv4 address are encoded in lowest 32 bits, part of the originator

Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15: (with COMMENT)

Forget about last email.. My computer started to get old emails... -Mensaje original- De: Oscar González de Dios Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de enero de 2020 17:42 Para: adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Benjamin Kaduk' ; 'The IESG' CC: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org

Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adrian, I can take care of posting (as one of the main editors). Minor thing, current posted version is -16, so I guess this one should be -17 right? Oscar -Mensaje original- De: Adrian Farrel Enviado el: jueves, 12 de diciembre de 2019 21:09 Para: 'Benjamin Kaduk' ; 'The IESG'

Re: [Pce] IPR poll on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce

Dear Chairs, all, I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. Apologies for the delay in the answer and best regards, Oscar -Mensaje original- De: Pce En nombre de dan...@olddog.co.uk Enviado el: lunes, 18 de marzo

Re: [Pce] Final IPR check for draft-ietf-pce-pceps

Dear Jon, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-pceps. Best Regards, Óscar De: Jonathan Hardwick > Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 6:50 Para:

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-pkd-pce-pcep-yang-06

Yes, I support the adoption of draft-pkd-pce-pcep-yang-06 as a working group document. Best Regards, Óscar Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo

[Pce] Fwd: [tcpm] Looking for advice on a draft from the PCE working group

FYI Enviado desde mi iPad Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: Joe Touch to...@isi.edumailto:to...@isi.edu Fecha: 13 de marzo de 2014 16:57:36 GMT+1 Reenviado-Por: dhruv.i...@gmail.commailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com, di...@tid.esmailto:di...@tid.es, ogon...@tid.esmailto:ogon...@tid.es,

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ?

Support (as coauthor) Best Regards, Oscar Enviado desde mi iPad El 04/03/2014, a las 10:52, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) jvass...@cisco.com escribió: Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for adopting

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ?

Support (as co-author). Best Regards, Oscar El 04/03/14 10:47, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) jvass...@cisco.com escribió: Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we

Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE applicability

Hi PCErs, I think it is key to have a document about the stateful PCE applicability, so the rationale behind stateful and active PCE is well understood. Let me point out that I also speak as a contributing author, so I am biased.. The applicability draft documents a set of use cases considered

Re: [Pce] Questions about stateful PCE, relation to WG charter and opinion about stateful PCE

Hi Julien Thanks for the reply. As you said, there where several parts of the message. I will now limit to cover the discussion of the scope of LSP delegation and LSP incitation procedures in the charter. For the rest, I will reply in separate mails, in private if you want, in sake of

Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward next steps

Dear PCErs, In the case of current Working Group stateful PCE solution (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02), the focus is mainly on the new functions to be supported: Capability Negotiation, State Synchronization, LSP State Report , LSP Control Delegation, LSP Update Request, etc All

[Pce] Minor comments on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04

Dear draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04 authors, After implementing the H-PCE architecture and writing the solution document (currently draft-zhang-pce-hierarchy-extensions-01 ) we found a couple of small issues that could be considered in the framework H-PCE document: - Section

Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document

...@cisco.com] Enviado el: jueves, 09 de febrero de 2012 14:48 Para: Julien Meuric; pce@ietf.org; Oscar González de Dios Asunto: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Julien Meuric wrote: Oscar (and others), Your point is not clear

Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document

Hi all PCErs, I also support the work in draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 and share the main concerns. Although I do support the work, I think we should start scoping the stateful PCE, looking at the architecture, application scenarios and use cases from a broad perspective, with many

[Pce] Comments on draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-01.txt

Dear authors of draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-01, please find bellow my comments and questions on the draft, First of all, thanks for the valuable work on the stateful PCE topic and raising the discussions. Regarding delegation. What happens if the PCE-PCC connection is lost / closed? Do we

Re: [Pce] PCE and TED - was: Adoption of draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-06

Hi Ramón, all... First of all, I would like to point out that we may differentiate several environments with different requirements for the multidomain problem. The PCE is scoped for any kind of network, from transport networks (OTN/SWON) with a rather limited number of domains, few

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-06

Support, Best Regards, Oscar -Mensaje original- De: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] En nombre de Julien Meuric Enviado el: martes, 20 de septiembre de 2011 17:08 Para: pce@ietf.org Asunto: [Pce] Adoption of draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-06 Hi PCE WG. The

Re: [Pce] Question / issue PCEP port restriction - multiple PCEP adjacencies

Hi Ramon, Fei, We have tested the PCE implementation in both Windows and Linux and we get different results. The implementation is made in java, and the SO_REUSADOR option is set in the sockets. Behavior in Linux: - Test 1: Create and connect a client socket

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01?

Hi Julien, Yes, I support (I am one of the editors of the draft) Best Regards, Óscar -Mensaje original- De: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] En nombre de Julien Meuric Enviado el: martes, 03 de agosto de 2010 18:10 Para: pce@ietf.org Asunto: [Pce] Adoption of

Re: [Pce] question about draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03

Hi Adrian, Lots of thanks for the very complete response. Further comments inline. At the end, I continue with more sections of the document. -Mensaje original- De: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] Enviado el: jueves, 27 de mayo de 2010 13:42 Para: Oscar González de Dios CC

[Pce] question about draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03

Dear authors/all I have a few comments about draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03. It this draft, it is specified in section 3.1 the applicability of BRPC when the Domain Path is Not Known. Bellow are my comments with regards to the text in the draft: - When the ingress