Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-02 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/
___
Pce mailing
Hi authors,
I've reviewed draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-02. The I-D is clear and ready
to move forward. I particularly liked:
- the full expansion of the PCEP acronym in the title, including
"Communication", while quoting the registry name as is;
- the care taken on not overriding the experimental
Hi all,
This is an adoption poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update.
Do you believe that this document [1] is a right foundation for a PCE WG
item?
Please use the PCE mailing list to express your support or the reasons
why you may be opposed to its adoption.
Thank you,
Julien
--
Hi PCE'rs,
This WGLC has ended. Thank you to the WG for the useful feedback; thank
you to the authors for resolving the comments and updating the I-D
accordingly. I'll now proceed with the shepherd review.
Thanks,
Julien
On 06/09/2024 14:23:58 julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all,
Sinc
Hi all,
Since we have consensus, let's move forward with this simple fix to [1],
as agreed with the IESG. This message starts a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-01 [2]. Please share your support or comments
on the PCE mailing list by Friday September 20.
Thank you,
Julien
Hi all,
We have clear support and no objection on adopting this small I-D: it is
now a PCE WG item.
@Authors: please re-submit the draft as draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-00.
@Authors of draft-farrel-pce-experimental-errors: please talk to the
authors of the aforementioned I-D to consider adding
Hi Samuel.
Assuming we get consensus on option 1, I believe it does make sense to
add a sentence in the I-D leaving explicitly the door open for a further
extension.
Thanks,
Julien
On 31/07/2024 09:41, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) wrote:
Does it make sense to explicitly mentioned in the draft tha
Hi all,
In his review of the "native IP" draft, John suggested to consider
adjusting to "IETF Review" the allocation policy of some of the PCEP
registries currently using "Standards Action". Dhruv has submitted
draft-dhody-pce-iana-update to quickly resolve this concern and bring
higher consi
Hi all,
FYI
The IETF tools development team identified an error in the interface
between the IETF registration system and the datatracker that mistakenly
marked people as volunteers for the 2024 NomCom. (Please note that
volunteering via the registration system is not offered for IETF 120
re
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-25 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang/
___
Pce mailing
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for addressing my comments. The new version looks good to me.
Please note however that idnits shouts because of too long lines: have
you tried circumvent it?
Cheers,
Julien
On 17/05/2024 08:51, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
HI Julien,
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 7:57 PM wrote:
D
Hi all,
As a shepherd of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang, I'd be happy to know if you
have an implementation of the PCEP YANG module specified in the I-D, or
if you have plans to do so.
You may of course share your answer privately if you wish.
Thank you,
Julien
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cry
Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang,
I've reviewed the aforementioned document to prepare its publication
request. The I-D is almost ready to move forward and only has minor
issues and nits that should be addressed before sending it to the IESG.
Minor issues:
- The introduction doesn't m
Hi all,
For an experimental document, we have a decent level of support and no
objection. Every author has responded to the IPR check. The I-D is thus
adopted by the PCE WG.
@authors: Please, resubmit it as draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-00.
Thanks,
Julien
On 04/04/2024 18:18, Julien Meuric wrote
Forwarding to the list.
-- Original Message --
From: "Sivabalan, Siva"
Date: 15/04/2024 01:07 BST
Subject: RE: [**EXTERNAL**] FW: [Pce] IPR poll for
draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
disclosed in accordance with IET
Hi all,
We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to
progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense
than an independent submission.
As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become
a PCE WG document? Please share your feed
Hi John,
I agree with most changes but the one below. If we get rid of the
MPLS-specific langage, then I feel the term "router" isn't generic
enough. Depending on the data plane technology, the head-end/ingress may
indeed be referred to as a ROADM, a cross-connect, a bridge, a switch,
etc. I
Hi John,
I guess Lars points "native" out because it appears in the milestones.
It's there because it's reusing the title of the associated draft, which
is a reference to the title of RFC 8821...
As I'm not a "native" English speaker, I can't really evaluate how much
offensive the term is. I
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/
___
Pce mailing
Hi all,
This 2nd WG LC has ended. No concerns have been expressed. Thanks Adrian
and Andrew for reviewing.
@authors: It will probably be caught later in the process but make sure
to address Adrian's comment as part of the next revision.
Thanks,
Julien
On 09/11/2023 18:13, Julien M
Dear PCE WG,
As suggested by Sean during the WG meeting today, this message starts a
2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02 [1]. Please, express
any comments you have about the latest revision of this document (diff
in [2]) using the PCE mailing list..
This WGLC will end on Friday
Hi all,
No concerns have been expressed about this early allocation. We'll thus
proceed to the next step.
Thanks,
Dhruv & Julien
On 28/07/2023 15:58, Julien Meuric wrote:
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path for an early c
Hi all,
This LC has ended. A few comments have been shared (thank you Stéphane).
@Authors: please, resolve them.
In the meantime, we'll proceed with RtgDir and SecDir review.
Thanks,
Julien
Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:09:38 +0200
From: Julien M
Dear PCE WG,
This message starts a 2-week WG last call on
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-01 [1]. Please, be express any comments you
have about this document using the PCE mailing list.
This WGLC will end on Wednesday 20th September 2023.
Thanks,
Julien
--
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path for an early code point allocation on the
association type referred to in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-11#name-iana-considerations
RFC 7120 requires to meet the following
Hi PCE WG,
We have clear support to adopt this work as a WG item. Thank you, all.
@Authors: Please submit the I-D as draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-00
when the submission tool reopens (starting next Saturday).
Cheers,
Dhruv & Julien
On 20/06/2023 09:46, Julien Meuric wrote:
Hi
Hi Authors,
In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and
contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with
IETF IPR rules.
Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:
- I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
Hi Authors,
In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and
contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with
IETF IPR rules.
Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of:
- I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be
Hi all,
It has been a while since draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor started to
document how to extend the scope of RFC 7470. It is now time to consider
its adoption by the WG.
Do you think draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-16 [1] is ready to
become a PCE work item? Please express your supp
Julien Meuric has requested publication of
draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07 as Proposed Standard on behalf
of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforc
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-10
as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/
__
Julien Meuric has requested publication of
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-09 as Proposed Standard on
behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-contr
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-09 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec/
___
Pce ma
Julien Meuric has requested publication of
draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-08 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-dive
Julien Meuric has requested publication of
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07 as Proposed Standard on behalf of
the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-prote
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-association-group-08
as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-group/
__
Hi Jeff,
You're right. I certainly don't want to change the specification, nor to
add another ambiguity. I was just looking for a mnemonic to mitigate the
confusion pointed out by Martin, to be considered between bracket
(leaving the definition as is).
Would "limit-blind" make sense?
Cheers,
Jul
Hi,
This LC has ended, without pointed out issue. We will then move to
shepherd review.
Thanks,
Julien
On 13/12/2018 14:29, Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This e-mail starts a 3-week PCE WG Last Call on
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-08. Please share your r
Hi all,
This e-mail starts a 3-week PCE WG Last Call on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-08. Please share your reviews
and comments using the mailing list by Friday January 5, 2019.
Thank you,
Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https:/
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-residu
Hi Adrian,
Thank you for the buttkick, this is sometimes useful, especially when
(temporarily) transitioning from a couple of chairs kicking each other
to a single one struggling at self-kicking. This is another opportunity
to greet Jon again for his valuable work, both on stage and behind the
sce
FYI, from the Spring list.
Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:56:26 +0800
From: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn
To: ms...@cisco.com, stef...@previdi.net
CC: spr...@ietf.org
Dear authors,
I found that draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14 only defined SR-ERO
(NT=5) for
Julien Meuric has requested publication of
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-exten
Hi,
This LC has ended. Thank you Adrian for the review. Authors, please
resolve the open items and publish a revision accordingly.
Cheers,
Julien
Sep. 06, 2018 - julien.meu...@orange.com:
> Hi all,
>
> This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-05.
Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions,
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-hierarchy-extensions and, if so, if it has been disclosed
in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
Hi all,
This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-05. Please review and share your
feedback on the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Thursday
September, 20.
Regards,
Jon & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@
Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-association-group,
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-association-group and, if so, if it has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5
Support
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Thursday, Febr
Hi all.
This last call has ended. It seems that nobody objects to this revision.
FYI, Dhruv has agreed to be the shepherd of this document.
Thanks,
Jon & Julien
Jul. 23, 2018 - :
> Hi all,
>
> The I-D extending PCEP for segment routing has faced substantial changes
> during its latest revisio
Hi all,
Please find below my review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions, dug
out of the backlog. Let us discuss the main identified issues first, we
will look at the minor comments and nits afterwards.
Generally speaking, the main items to improve are related to
clarification. Normative behav
Hi Eric,
As a shepherd, I can address your 2nd concern without waiting for the
authors.
For both defined TLVs, the backward compatibility is addressed by the
last sentence of sections 3 and 4:
" If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-xxx
TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance
Hi all,
As mentioned during our session in London, we have received a request
from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp for an early code
point allocation.
RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:
b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
Hi all,
The PCE meeting for London is tentatively scheduled on Tuesday early
afternoon (same time as RIFT). If you need some face-to-face time to
progress some work, please send a slot request to the chairs and
secretary by Monday March 5 including:
- the draft(s) you want to discuss,
- the expect
Hi,
This WG LC has ended. Authors, some comments have been raised (at least
by Cyril): please address them.
Thanks,
Jon & Julien
Feb. 01, 2018 - Julien Meuric:
> Hi all,
>
> This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04. Please revie
Hi all,
Thanks to those who responded to the poll. It confirms the consensus we
originally had in the room. The I-D is adopted as a WG document.
Authors, please submit draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-00.
Cheers,
Jon & Julien
Jan. 22, 2018 - julien.meu...@orange.com:
> Hi all,
>
> Back in
Hi all,
This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04. Please review and share your
feedback on the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Thursday February, 15.
Regards,
Jon & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf
Hi all,
This LC has ended.
Adrian, Dhruv (on HAST time), thanks a lot for your valuable reviews.
Authors, please address identified issues and update the I-D.
Cheers,
Julien
Jan. 15, 2018 - Julien Meuric:
> Dear PCE WG,
>
> Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable speci
Hi all,
Back in Prague, draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request raised clear
interest. Since then, the authors have done their homework, including
the removal of suggested values. Let us now share the question with the
whole WG: do you think draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request is a good
foundation for
Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing,
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-segment-routing
and, if so, if it has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules?
(See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
Dear PCE WG,
Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable specifications. Let
us begin by resuming our work in progress.
This message starts a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11. Please send your feedback on the I-D
to the PCE mailing list by Monday January 29.
Reg
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/
___
Pce ma
Ina, Siva,
I cannot find your response to this IPR poll. Please send your feedback
to the list as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Julien
Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 09:55:23 +0200
From: Julien Meuric
Dear authors,
Could you please send an email to the PCE
Hi,
It looks like the errata form has become a playground. ADs, please feel
free to reject.
Thanks,
Julien
Nov. 30, 2017 - rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4674,
> "Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery".
>
> --
comments are accepted.)
> I will hold the document mark-ups until WGLC ends.
>
> Cheers
> Jon
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2017 17:08
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for this new version o
Hi,
Thank you for this new version of the I-D, it has greatly improved and
clarifies former loose zones. Please find my review below.
--
Abstract
---
- s/traffic engineering paths (TE paths)/Traffic Engineering paths (TE
paths)/
- I wonder about the expansion of "TE path" above: why not "Engi
Dear PCE WG,
Considering the concerns discussed on the list after the 1st WG Last
Call, especially about the backward compatibility of the additional TLV
(please see Jon's change list), this message starts a 2nd LC on
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-06. It will end on Monday December 4.
Thanks for
Hi,
IMHO, the correct wording lies in between. RFC 5440 set the default
for PCEP ("A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error").
Further specification (e.g. RFC 8231) MAY add message-specific
behavior, but I think it is wrong to mandate a new behavior for eac
pick one which is not
> supported and the LSP setup will fail. For SR, the PCE may know it through
> the SR cap, but for RSVP, can the PCE deduce it from another information ?
>
>
> Brgds,
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@
Hi,
Glad to see we are converging. To make sure we are on the same page
(solution (2) referring to a shortcut), the conclusion is that, as soon
as PST is not 0 (i.e. RSVP-TE), we always include the PST TLV in PCReq,
PCRep, PCUpd, PCRpt and PCInitiate: is that right?
This leads me to another quest
Dear WG,
You probably all had a look at the PCE agenda:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/agenda-100-pce/
(thanks Dhruv).
If you have a slot, you are expected to send your slides to the chairs
and secretary by Saturday 11. Please take into account the duration
actually allocated
Hi all,
We may add on top of the reasons below the strong impact PCE-initiation
has from the implementation's perspective (which is somehow linked to
the first 2 items).
Up to I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce, it was all about configuration on PCCs,
just allowing PCEs to trigger actions. I-D.ietf-pce-pce
I have completed a transition phase, and
> it is a great time for me to step down as PCE co-chair.
>
> I would like to warmly thank my friend Adrian whom I started the PCE
> WG with in 2005 and many years of close collaboration, Julien Meuric
> who has been a terrific co-chair, and Jonatha
Hi Joel,
Any issue with a request to initiate an LSP setup/teardown to a device? ;-)
I agree the name reads odd, but it has been there for some time now and
the WG seems to be fine with it. Besides, it does not prevent anyone to
add better wording in a patch to their favorite decoding software...
Hi Daniele,
[Operator hat on.]
I agree on several things you wrote, starting from the answer to
Jon's rhetorical question, which cares more about how much (at least
I've never noticed my co-chair has a short memory).
Nevertheless the sentence below need
Hi,
I agree that capability bitmap with optional capability-specific
sub-TLVs would be the way to go from scratch. However the
SR-PCE-CAPABILITY already has an early allocated codepoint, and RFC
7120 says that "if there is a change, implementations based on the
e
Hi,
The discussion during the meeting suggests that I need to clarify my
comment about draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid.
This I-D is very similar to draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext, which addresses
the exact same problem over a slightly different WDM label space
(running a side-by-side diff between them a
Hi all,
The tentative agenda for our upcoming meeting is on line since last
week. Without further comments, it will be used as a final version.
Presenters, if you have a slot, please send your slides to the chairs
and secretary by Saturday, 15th.
Thanks,
Jon, JP & Julien
Jun. 23, 2017 - julie
Hi all,
The PCE WG session in Prague is tentatively scheduled on Tuesday 3:50pm
(facing I2RS).
If you need meeting time to progress some work, please send a request to
the chairs and secretary by Monday July 3, including:
- the associated I-D(s),
- the expected presenter,
- the requested duration,
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-lsp-setup-type
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 n
Hi all,
This LC has ended. Authors, please resolve the open comment on this I-D
so that we can send it to the IESG.
Thanks,
Jon, JP & Julien
May. 02, 2017 - Julien Meuric:
> Dear all,
>
> The aforementioned I-D has been stable for a while. This message
> initiates a 2-week
Ramon,
Thanks a lot for your feedback, this is very helpful.
Julien
May. 09, 2017 - ramon.casel...@cttc.es:
> On 9/5/17 12:18, Julien Meuric wrote:
>> On the former, we must not forget that:
>> - the use of PCNtf is consistent with the overload case in RFC 5440,
>> - dr
Hi Dhruv,
At this stage, it seems a bit late to introduce this change into the
document. However, keeping only "MAY" would allow implementations to
behave the way you suggest. Do we consider your feedback as supporting
"MAY"?
Thanks,
Julien
May. 09, 2017 - dhruv.dh...@huawei.com:
>
> Hi Jon, W
previous WG
and IETF LCs),
- draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce has early allocated codepoints.
As a result, the PCNtf is not an open question in the current case.
Then in the text...
May. 09, 2017 - ramon.casel...@cttc.es:
> On 9/5/17 10:35, Julien Meuric wrote:
>> Hi Ramon,
>>
>> In
Hi Ramon,
Indeed, the I-D used to consider an error for this case, but RFC 5440
gives the pace and 2 codepoints were allocated:
- PCErr are associated to PCEP issues ("when a protocol error condition
is met or when the request is not compliant with the PCEP specification");
- PCNtf are typically u
ions and so on, should we consider
> path-setup-type to be different?
>
> Just some thoughts, lets see what the authors/WG think...
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv
>
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Julien Meuric
> mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com>> wrote:
>
>
, but where is the RSVP-TE counterpart? I feel we
should add a 4-byte RSVP-TE-CAPABILITY TLV, with length = 0 and
recommended omission in case of RSVP-TE only.
My 50 cents,
Julien
May. 02, 2017 - Julien Meuric:
> Dear all,
>
> The aforementioned I-D has been stable for a while. Thi
Dear all,
The aforementioned I-D has been stable for a while. This message
initiates a 2-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-04.
Please send your comments to the PCE mailing list by May 15.
Thanks,
Jon, JP & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Hi Lionel,
Thank you for following up. I think we're almost done. My answers below
as [JM2].
Julien
Apr. 12, 2017 - >> =
>> [JM] NACK! ;-) Actually, the passive mode is advertised using the
>> Stateful-capability-object TLV with the U bit unset, the active
>> mode by setting the U bit.
>>
Hi Cyril, hi Adrian,
Don't worry, even though we missed several datatracker cycles, the
I-D isn't forgotten and a shepherd has been appointed: me. ;-)
The chairs had decided to apply WFQ over the I-D processing queue.
Considering the low pressure product impleme
Jon, Lionel,
I believe Lionel got confused by the wording introduced in RFC 8051:
- no report, no update means stateless PCE;
- report, no update means passive stateful PCE;
- report and update means active (stateful) PCE.
More details below, [JM].
Thanks for the work,
Julien
Apr. 11, 2017 -
Hi Vicky,
Thank you for your review and this helpful feedback. We'll make sure
they're addressed in the next revision.
Cheers,
Julien
Apr. 06, 2017 - pritchar...@gmail.com:
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
> draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to
progress (which scheduled presenters should do as well).
If you have a main stream slot, please send your slides to the chairs
and secretary by _Friday 24_.
Thank you,
Jon, JP & Julien
Feb. 27, 2017 - Julien Meuric:
> Hi all, > > The PCE WG session in Chicago is tentatively schedu
Hi all,
The PCE WG session in Chicago is tentatively scheduled on Monday 3:20pm.
If you need meeting time to progress some work, please send a request to
the chairs and secretary by Monday March 13, including:
- the associated I-D(s),
- the expected presenter,
- the requested duration,
- the motiv
[Apologies, if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]
Call for Presentation
13th International Conference on IP + Optical Network (iPOP 2017)
June 1-2, 2017, Fujitsu Kawasaki Main Office, Kawasaki, Japan
http://ww
Hi all,
In case you overlooked it, please be aware of the ongoing work on new
RFC format. The tool development mentioned below follows the publication
of a set of RFCs in last December (starting from RFC 7990), which marked
a strong step towards the evolution of the RFC format.
Regards,
Julien
Hi,
This topic was tackled a while ago in the context of
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wn4gGwZnTZS53pbyg1eCHw3YMVE
It looks like the I-D would benefit from clarification on this matter
before sending it to the IESG. Authors, what to do you think?
Aar
Hi Aaron,
Thank for you comment.
As you point out, the current I-D has taken a timer-based approach:
- while State Timeout is not expired, decision is at the PCE level, any
PCE with ID knowledge may claim control (not necessarily granted);
- once State Timeout is expired, the PCC gets the decisio
Hi,
With support and without objection, this confirms the consensus to adopt
this I-D as a PCE WG item. Authors, please republish it as
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-00.
Thanks,
Jon, JP & Julien
Nov. 24, 2016 - Julien Meuric:
Hi all,
Though it is a -00, draft-dhody-pce-associa
Hi Haomian,
Thank you for your feedback. Would you mind pointing the editors to
the nits you spotted?
Cheers,
Julien
Dec. 02, 2016 -
zhenghaom...@huawei.com:
Hi WG,
Hi all,
Though it is a -00, draft-dhody-pce-association-policy already has a
long history: thanks to the authors for the common work. During our
meeting in Seoul, it received some support from the room. We now want to
know whether the list agrees to adopt it as a foundation for a PCE WG
docum
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
