From pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 20:30:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0oWh-0003HY-NP; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:30:43 -0500 Received: from pce by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J0oWg-0003HS-Oq for pce-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:30:42 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0oWg-0003HK-D9; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:30:42 -0500 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com ([62.128.201.249]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0oWf-0005Rv-A1; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:30:42 -0500 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lB81U9aE029865; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:30:09 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (211_183_9_72-WIFI_HOTSPOTS.eng.telusmobility.com [72.9.183.211] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB81TuPD029798; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:30:05 GMT Message-ID: <00dd01c83939$d9f6d310$6601a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Ross Callon" Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:29:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3fbd9b434023f8abfcb1532abaec7a21 Cc: pce@ietf.org, WG Milestone Tracker Subject: [Pce] Please publish draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp-03 X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp-03 Intended status : Informational > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? This document has been reviewed by the PCE working group, although the number of people in the working group with a deep understanding of policy is limited. In order to broaden the review, we sent the document to the IPSphere forum who are more experienced in these matters. We received comments back from two members and the document was updated accordingly. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. The working group chairs were not completely convinced that there was a need for this document, but members of the working group were supportive, and it is certainly true that policy is discussed within the PCE architecture (RFC 4655) and is very applicable for inter-AS PCE. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? There were no problems with consensus for this document. When the I-D was accepted by the WG there was strong support. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This is an Informational I-D. A null IANA section is present. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such sections. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. The Path Computation Element (PCE) Architecture (RFC 4655) introduces the concept of policy in the context of path computation. This document provides additional details on policy within the PCE Architecture and also provides context for the support of PCE Policy. This document introduces the use of the Policy Core Information Model (PCIM) as a framework for supporting path computation policy. This document also provides representative scenarios for the support of PCE Policy. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? Nothing of note. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications. Expert policy review was provided by Christian Jacquenet from France Telecom who is a participant in the IPSphere forum. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Dec 19 12:27:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J52hY-0007nn-23; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:27:24 -0500 Received: from pce by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J52hX-0007m7-4M for pce-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:27:23 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J52hW-0007jC-Ot for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:27:22 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J52hW-0007xJ-HK for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:27:22 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2007 12:27:22 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBJHRMCB009153 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:27:22 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBJHR6vV021598 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:27:22 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:27:12 -0500 Received: from 10.86.104.182 ([10.86.104.182]) by xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:27:11 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:27:06 -0500 From: JP Vasseur To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Draft PCE WG meeting Minutes have been posted Thread-Index: AchCZGBOnyfNFq5XEdyn/AANk8WjQA== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2007 17:27:12.0127 (UTC) FILETIME=[63F5B8F0:01C84264] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=186; t=1198085242; x=1198949242; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Draft=20PCE=20WG=20meeting=20Minutes=20have=20b een=20posted |Sender:=20 |To:=20; bh=Nj0CuKyImz7UOlSfaVZjjXSax20WHMTpRxYyqWGPycw=; b=VpBDr706LOeFCQ12O8W9E3hD31W16H/yRrtaFTzNSDUZIYO/+MBTto8QT0 FvKUiLC8eR0dcG343h0Qrn0WqOp/EbzeWQzFcYWf+HVhZi5eRENCpNsIszxD qnBW576ZFs; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: Subject: [Pce] Draft PCE WG meeting Minutes have been posted X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org Dear WG, We have posted the draft WG meeting minutes: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/pce.txt Please let us know if you have comments by Dec 30. Thanks. JP. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 11:46:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IMD-0004P4-Lq; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:46:49 -0500 Received: from pce by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IMB-0004EB-Rq for pce-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:46:47 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IMB-00045e-GJ for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:46:47 -0500 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com ([62.128.201.249]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IMA-0004Yi-8j for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:46:46 -0500 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBSGkdcR001321; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:46:39 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBSGkbAs001292; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:46:39 GMT Message-ID: <04c701c84971$36a82360$0501a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:42:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] P2MP PCE X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org Hi JL, In Vancouver you said you had some thoughts and issues with the P2MP PCEP drafts draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-01.txt and draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt. The main issue that you raised at the microphone was that you felt that the I-Ds were too strong in their assertion that P2MP computation would never be done at a head-end LSR. Looking back at the I-Ds, I see that the requirements draft makes no claims about the applicability of the PCE architecture to P2MP LSP computation: it devolves this responsibility to the applicability I-D. The applicability I-D does discuss the potentially greater computational load for P2MP LSPs compared to P2P LSPs. It states: Roughly speaking, the load to compute a least-cost-to-leaf tree is the same as the cost to compute a single optimal path to each leaf in turn. The load to compute a Steiner tree is approximately an order of magnitude greater. >From what you said in Vancouver, you are suggesting that approximations to Steiner may be achieved in roughly the same order of magnitude as a least-cost-to-leaf tree. Would be enough to you if we added to this paragraph to say... ...although powerful heuristics exist that may make it possible to approximate a Steiner tree in the same computational time as a least-cost-to-leaf tree. Were there any other issues you wanted to raise? Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce