We (authors) are working through the issues identified during the WGLC [1]
and would like to seek further input from the WG on the following comment
from Diego [2] regarding the scope of the draft.
**
*Now, I think that this PCEP extension should not be limited to RSVP-TE
LSPs only. I know that co
Dhruv, Hi!,
I support publication of the document. The document should be ready to
progress to the next stage after addressing the comments raised by Adrian.
Regards,
-Pavan (as a co-author).
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:21 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 2-weeks working grou
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 1:23 AM Andrew Stone (Nokia) wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
>
>
> In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and
> contributors to con
Hi Pavan,
>
>
>
> Please see inline .
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Samuel
>
>
>
> *From:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2023 4:40 PM
> *To:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
> *Cc:* Dhruv Dhody ; Dhruv Dhody ;
> Marcel Reuter (External) ;
&g
can be included, but some PCEP
> objects have fixed length) and all PCEP messages, where PCEP objects with
> optional TLVs can be included. But including any PCEP object MUST be
> explicitly allowed - including potential expected ordering of objects in
> that PCEP message (considering
o this route, we may need to change the name of the draft as
> it is no longer just stateful!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv (no hats)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 10:19 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> wrote:
>
>> Please see inline..
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 2,
Please see inline..
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 7:19 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Pavan,
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:39 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> wrote:
>
>> Marcel, Hi!
>> Thanks for bringing this to the list! I interpret the text in RFC5440
>> regarding "one O
Marcel, Hi!
Thanks for bringing this to the list! I interpret the text in RFC5440
regarding "one OPEN object" to just mean that the Open Message cannot carry
more than one "OPEN" object.
Dhruv, Hi!
I would propose updating draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor to explicitly
allow the use of the "VEND
Adrian, Hi!
Thanks for bringing this to the WG's attention!
I don't think this issue warrants anything other than (1) from your list of
actions.
This isn't much of an issue from a deployment/operational point of view. If
an RSVP-TE implementation chose to add (either deliberately or erroneously)
Dhruv, Hi!
Thanks for the response! Please see inline..
Regards,
-Pavan
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:03 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Pavan,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <
> vishnupa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to get some clar
I would like to get some clarification on the text below (understand that a
publication request has been made for the draft).
**
>From Section 5:
When L-flag is not set and E-flag is not set then PCE SHOULD consider
the protection eligibility as UNPROTECTED PREFERRED but MAY consider
pro
As a co-author, I would like to see the document get adopted by the WG.
The use of "color" to associate a TE tunnel/policy with an intent has been
widely discussed in other routing area WGs -- the PCEP extension proposed
in this document to carry the "color" attribute is a useful addition to the
s
Hari, Chairs,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:53 AM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all
> authors an
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:49 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for WG LC on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and contributors to
)
-- Forwarded message -
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 12:42 PM
Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-10
To: TEAS WG
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs
All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas
coded before it, are to be
> considered as part of and those after it, as part
> of .
>
> If the RRO is absent, all attributes are part
> of .
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:11 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> wrote:
>
WG,
As per RFC8231, a PCRpt message can carry a list of entries,
where:
::= []
where:
::=
[]
::=[]
[]
When the report carries both "actual attributes" and "intended a
Dhruv had a question in today's session on where the color TLV needs to be
placed. The placement of the TLV depends on the use-case. For the RSVP-TE
service-mapping use-case discussed in this document, the TLV would be
placed in the LSP object. For the multipath use-case, it would be
in PATH-ATTRIB
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in
accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Regards,
-Pavan
From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
Date: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 8:34 AM
To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) , ssiva...@ciena.com
, Tarek Saad , Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Yes, the draft should be adopted. It addresses a crucial gap in the TE
multipath toolkit.
Regards,
-Pavan (as a co-author)
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-05.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.
s 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.
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
Support the adoption of this document -- this is a critical piece for
realizing controller driven SR policies.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:46 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
>
>
> https://
I have reviewed the latest version of this draft and I do believe that it
is ready to progress to the next stage of the publication process.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 10:34 AM wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft
gt;
Yeah, looking forward to see some opinions come in on this.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> *Sent:* 10 January 2020 05:45
> *To:* Adrian Farrel
> *Cc:* pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org
> *Subj
Adrian, Hi!
Much Thanks for starting this thread! There are multiple implementations
that support user-triggered installation/uninstallation of
destination-IPv4/IPv6 prefixes bound to a TE Path (installation of routes
subject to longest prefix match based forwarding) and it is important to
have
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:42 AM Jonathan Hardwick wrote:
> Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp,
>
>
>
> Could you please send an email to the PCE mailing list saying whether you
> are aware of any IPR that applies
Yes/Support.
Regards,
- Pavan
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Jonathan Hardwick <
jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote:
> Dear PCE WG
>
>
>
> This is the start of a two week poll on making
> draft-barth-pce-association-bidir-04
> a PCE working group document.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.o
Support.
-Pavan
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Julien Meuric
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> During the joint TEAS-MPLS-PCE Yang session in Berlin, we had a clear
> consensus in the room on the interest for the aforementioned I-D. We now
> need to see if the mailing list confirms this consensus. As a re
Yes/Support!
-Pavan (Co-Author)
*From:* Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Hardwick
> *Sent:* 28 June 2016 22:29
> *To:* pce@ietf.org
> *Cc:* draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p
Fwding this WGLC to PCE for additional commentary (Note, this TEAS draft is
related to ).
- Pavan and Lou
-- Forwarded message --
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Date: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:20 PM
Subject: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-01
To: "t...@iet
Support.
-Pavan
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Support.
>
> Thanks,
> Young
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> julien.meu...@orange.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:43 AM
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] PCE WG
Support.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Following the opposition expressed on merging MPLS and GMPLS documents for
> stateful PCE, the sense of the room was in favor of adopting the
> aforementionned I-D.
> Now we would like to get the feedback of the mailing
33 matches
Mail list logo
