From pce-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 1 02:19:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4C73A6AD6; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:19:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A053A6AE2 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:19:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.319 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.409, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mggCkYMJv1Tc for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D6B3A692C for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.149]) by tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m719IkGf019357; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:18:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CF165FE; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:18:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.68]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3581165FD; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:18:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m719Ij26014894; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:18:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from imb.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imb0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.140]) by eclscan2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m719IjSq014889; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:18:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from imb.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (webmail.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.130]) by imb.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m719IjLZ017494; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:18:45 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <200808010918.m719IjLZ017494@imb.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp> To: jvasseur@cisco.com, pce@ietf.org From: "inoue.ichiro@lab.ntt.co.jp" Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:18:45 +0900 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: WebMail V3.5.2 PL1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Both in favor. Thanks. Ichiro > Dear WG, > > There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG > documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm > on the list. > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt > > Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents > as PCE WG documents ? > > Thanks. > > JP. > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 3 17:35:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE6D3A69A9; Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:35:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF453A6980 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.701, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bl5tOJOfWQHR for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:601:12:230:48ff:fe22:3a84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001AE3A6893 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1630EC8A7; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:36:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp [2001:200:601:1300:172:19:83:254]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B095EC8F6; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:36:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp195.wlan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.110.195]) by platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF047578111; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:36:02 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <48964EE2.3070402@kddilabs.jp> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:35:46 +0900 From: Tomohiro Otani User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JP Vasseur References: In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org SGksCgpZZWFoLCBUaG9zZSBhcmUgZ29vZC4KSSBhbSBmaW5lIHdpdGggdGhlaXIgYmVpbmcgYWRv cHRlZCBhcyBXRyBkb2N1bWVudHMuCgpSZWdhcmRzLAoKVG9tbwoKSlAgVmFzc2V1ciDjgZXjgpPj ga/mm7jjgY3jgb7jgZfjgZ86Cj4gRGVhciBXRywKPgo+IFRoZXJlIHdhcyBhIGdvb2QgY29uc2Vu c3VzIHRvIGFkb3B0IHRoZSB0d28gZm9sbG93aW5nIGRvY3VtZW50cyBhcyBQQ0UgCj4gV0cgZG9j dW1lbnRzIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgbWVldGluZyBpbiBEdWJsaW4uIEFzIHVzdWFsLCB3ZSB3b3VsZCBs aWtlIHRvIAo+IGNvbmZpcm0gb24gdGhlIGxpc3QuCj4KPiBkcmFmdC15YXN1a2F3YS1wY2UtcDJt cC1hcHAtMDIudHh0Cj4gZHJhZnQteWFzdWthd2EtcGNlLXAybXAtcmVxLTA1LnR4dAo+Cj4gQ291 bGQgeW91IHRlbGwgdXMgaWYgeW91IGFyZSBpbiBmYXZvciAob3Igbm90KSBvZiBhZG9wdGluZyB0 aGVzZSAKPiBkb2N1bWVudHMgYXMgUENFIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50cyA/Cj4KPiBUaGFua3MuCj4KPiBK UC4KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPgo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCj4gUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdAo+IFBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZwo+IGh0dHBz Oi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlCj4gICAKCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0ClBjZUBp ZXRmLm9yZwpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQo= From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 4 04:57:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084B13A67EC; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 04:57:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEE53A6BAE for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 04:57:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.714 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oYddWhbCr0LS for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 04:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrga01-in.huawei.com (lhrga01-in.huawei.com [195.33.106.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08F73A67EC for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 04:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrml01-in [172.18.7.5]) by lhrga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K52005T0RVQAU@lhrga01-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:57:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from LENOVOmach ([222.131.243.186]) by lhrga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K52004GURVKJ4@lhrga01-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:57:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:57:18 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: JP Vasseur , pce@ietf.org Message-id: <699E8154D00641E7868B17D13B4C176F@LENOVOmach> Organization: Huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mach Chen List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1820767925==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org 这是一封 MIME 格式的多方邮件。 --===============1820767925== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_vm1P+h6BpVcUKjlymL0jyg)" 这是一封 MIME 格式的多方邮件。 --Boundary_(ID_vm1P+h6BpVcUKjlymL0jyg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability)In favor Mach From: JP Vasseur Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:50 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) Dear WG, There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list. draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ? Thanks. JP. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --Boundary_(ID_vm1P+h6BpVcUKjlymL0jyg) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability)
In favor
 
Mach

From: JP Vasseur
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:50 PM
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability)

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ?

Thanks.

JP.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--Boundary_(ID_vm1P+h6BpVcUKjlymL0jyg)-- --===============1820767925== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============1820767925==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 4 16:24:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655F33A6A26; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:24:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D213A6A26 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:24:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cE+uuwpN7IcR for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8533A6960 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m74NOVxA012714 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:24:33 -0400 Received: from chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca (chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca [132.207.67.80]) by www.imp.polymtl.ca (IMP) with HTTP for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:24:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1217892271.48978faf23c16@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:24:31 -0400 From: Meral Shirazipour To: "pce@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 132.207.67.80 X-Poly-FromMTA: (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) at Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:24:31 +0000 Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE computation times in a real network? I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft. Thanks, Meral _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 06:55:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064463A6ACB; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:55:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCA83A6ACB for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:55:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.659 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.939, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXtwKOrI4mvf for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B29A3A676A for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m75Dtjl0003489; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:55:47 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m75Dth2k003463; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: <007b01c8f702$f42c2c30$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Meral Shirazipour" References: <1217892271.48978faf23c16@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:55:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Now then, Meral, I think computation times *might* be dependent on CPU power, loading, compiler efficiency, software implementation, algorithm choice, network complexity, etc. Some observations suggest that computation for single LSPs with normal constraints can be achieved using CSPF and there are studies recording the number of logical steps needed to perform such a computation. In general, for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to the pre-existence of the PCEP session.) Other observations note that some computation problems are quite hard and need a few more cycles. In these cases, given the low power of CPUs on NEs, the communication time may be less significant. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Meral Shirazipour" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:24 AM Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time > Hi, > Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE computation > times > in a real network? > I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft. > > > Thanks, > Meral > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 07:05:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36C63A68B2; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066103A68B2 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.817 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.817 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.432, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sOCf6UwsevLP for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BF83A679C for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:05:23 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:00:42 +0200 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605C593A1@ftrdmel2> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) Thread-Index: AcjzHM6MDIXCRwPUGU2yxfO5Ap7uSAD5rfkw References: From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2008 14:05:23.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D9995E0:01C8F704] Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi. I agree on adoption. Julien ________________________________ From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur Dear WG, There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list. draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ? Thanks. JP. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 08:00:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A4C28C2C7; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D3B28C2C7 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SSZGl8E8vgpx for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6614928C2BD for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so3694708and.122 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.134.10 with SMTP id h10mr1562507and.80.1217948446775; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Serenity ( [72.14.241.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c27sm2867828ana.37.2008.08.05.08.00.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel King" To: "'PCE Working Group'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:00:49 +0100 Message-ID: <004e01c8f70c$0dd83300$29889900$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcjzHM6MDIXCRwPUGU2yxfO5Ap7uSAD7vnpw Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1441564590==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1441564590== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004F_01C8F714.6F9C9B00" Content-Language: en-gb This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C8F714.6F9C9B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I would support both these documents becoming WG docs. Br, Dan From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur Sent: 31 July 2008 15:51 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability) Dear WG, There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list. draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ? Thanks. JP. ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C8F714.6F9C9B00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and = applicability)

Hello All,

 

I would support both these documents becoming WG docs. =

 

Br, Dan

 

From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur
Sent: 31 July 2008 15:51
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement = and applicability)

 

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE = WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to = confirm on the list.

draft-yasukaw= a-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these = documents as PCE WG documents ?

Thanks.

JP.

------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C8F714.6F9C9B00-- --===============1441564590== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============1441564590==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 08:14:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4A43A6CE7; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:14:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7AC3A6CCE for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:14:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.073 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ii4tiNzEJT0X for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA82D3A6CDE for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:14:16 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1217949285!1017926!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 14985 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2008 15:14:45 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-7.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Aug 2008 15:14:45 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m75FEi7g024828 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:14:45 -0400 Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.19]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m75FEa0v024715 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:14:37 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:14:36 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) thread-index: AcjzHM6MDIXCRwPUGU2yxfO5Ap7uSAD8R3Ig References: From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: "JP Vasseur" , Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0186861769==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0186861769== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8F70D.F91BBEB5" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8F70D.F91BBEB5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes- Deborah ________________________________ From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:51 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) Dear WG, There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list. draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ? Thanks. JP.=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8F70D.F91BBEB5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement = and applicability)
Yes-
Deborah

From: pce-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP = Vasseur
Sent:=20 Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:51 AM
To: = pce@ietf.org
Subject:=20 [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement=20 andapplicability)

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to = adopt the=20 two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in = Dublin. As=20 usual, we would like to confirm on the list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2m= p-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if you = are in=20 favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents=20 ?

Thanks.

JP. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8F70D.F91BBEB5-- --===============0186861769== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============0186861769==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 08:32:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2229D3A6CF4; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:32:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05233A6CE7 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:31:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u3Rwkr5YW50N for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6C63A6CF4 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.9.16]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K5400GQAWI42I@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:32:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from L73682 ([10.124.12.74]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K5400G17WHZOP@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:32:27 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:32:23 -0500 From: Young Lee To: pce@ietf.org Message-id: <000001c8f710$75a8bff0$4a0c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: Acj3EHTzSqZViphoRlaIITefOJAn8g== Subject: [Pce] P2MP drafts X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1464657203==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1464657203== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_tjRwUZhL3jLRnF7S+J4thA)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_tjRwUZhL3jLRnF7S+J4thA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Yes, in favor for both drafts. Young ----------snipped------------------------- Dear WG, > > There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE > WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to > confirm on the list. > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt > > Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these > documents as PCE WG documents ? > > Thanks. > > JP. --Boundary_(ID_tjRwUZhL3jLRnF7S+J4thA) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, in favor for = both drafts.

 

Young

----------snipped-------------------------=

Dear = WG,

> 

> There was a = good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE =

> WG documents = during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to

> confirm on the = list.

> 

> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt

> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

> 

> Could you tell = us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these =

> = documents as PCE WG documents ?

> 

> = Thanks.

> 

> = JP.

 

--Boundary_(ID_tjRwUZhL3jLRnF7S+J4thA)-- --===============1464657203== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============1464657203==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 08:41:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3011128C2A5; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:41:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72BC28C2A4 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:41:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.307 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y4G03tRrl99k for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pro46.abac.com (pro46.abac.com [66.226.64.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328FE28C2A1 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.131] (c-71-202-41-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.41.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro46.abac.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m75Fg5Wl082331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:42:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gregb@grotto-networking.com) Message-ID: <489874CD.2060106@grotto-networking.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:42:05 -0700 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: pce@ietf.org References: <000001c8f710$75a8bff0$4a0c7c0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <000001c8f710$75a8bff0$4a0c7c0a@china.huawei.com> Subject: Re: [Pce] P2MP drafts X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org In favor of both drafts. Regards Greg B. > ----------snipped------------------------- > > Dear WG, > > > > > > There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE > > > WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to > > > confirm on the list. > > > > > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt > > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt > > > > > > Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these > > > documents as PCE WG documents ? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > JP. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 09:15:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F37D3A6883; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:15:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 0163E3A68BD; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:15:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080805161502.0163E3A68BD@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF. Title : Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Author(s) : J. Le Roux, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2008-08-05 The computation of one or a set of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks, is subject to a set of one or more specific optimization criteria, referred to as objective functions (e.g. minimum cost path, widest path, etc.). In the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture, a Path Computation Client (PCC) may want a path to be computed for one or more TE LSPs according to a specific objective function. Thus, the PCC needs to instruct the PCE to use the correct objective function. Furthermore, it is possible that not all PCEs support the same set of objective functions, therefore it is useful for the PCC to be able to automatically discover the set of objective functions supported by each PCE. This document defines extensions to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) to allow a PCE to indicate the set of objective functions it supports. Extensions are also defined so that a PCC can indicate in a path computation request the required objective function, and so that a PCE can report in a path computation reply the objective function that was used for path computation. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-08-05090819.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --NextPart-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 09:20:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840B328C26D; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC16B28C244 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:20:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.402, BAYES_40=-0.185, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vgyAFzNj6CKz for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91ED28C26D for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m75GKgmh011213 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:20:44 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m75GKe8r011201 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:20:41 +0100 Message-ID: <013a01c8f717$34d60990$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:20:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, This email starts a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt (The only differences from draft-ietf-pce-of-03.txt are that I reformatted the document to get the indentation right, re-ordered the sections so that the Introduction is the first section, expanded some acronyms where they first show up, ran I-D nits and fixed the errors, and regenerated the table of contents. Sometimes I feel like I am a cross between your secretary and your mother!) The last call will end at 9am GMT Wednesday 20th August. Please send your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 09:23:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9E328C2DB; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBDE28C2DC for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:23:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.78 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.819, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kXOo8kvx0VL for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B317428C2DA for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m75GOFo9017630; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:24:16 -0500 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:24:15 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:24:14 -0500 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF038758EB@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <013a01c8f717$34d60990$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] Working Group Last Call Thread-Index: Acj3F0SqsqnH1VygTbWc1+oX5+BNZAAAD4ZA References: <013a01c8f717$34d60990$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Eric Gray" To: "Adrian Farrel" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2008 16:24:15.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[B41C9660:01C8F717] Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Working Group Last Call X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Dear Mom, Thanks for the note. I am in the middle of something right at the moment, but I will be sure to get back to you with more detail as soon as I can. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:21 PM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call > > Hi, > > This email starts a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt > > (The only differences from draft-ietf-pce-of-03.txt are that > I reformatted > the document to get the indentation right, re-ordered the > sections so that > the Introduction is the first section, expanded some acronyms > where they > first show up, ran I-D nits and fixed the errors, and > regenerated the table > of contents. Sometimes I feel like I am a cross between your > secretary and > your mother!) > > The last call will end at 9am GMT Wednesday 20th August. > > Please send your comments to the list. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 09:43:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8423A695B; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D023A695B for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:43:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMECb0lzeMfT for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288BC3A68E7 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m75Gi7MU027888; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:44:08 -0400 Received: from chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca (chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca [132.207.67.80]) by www.imp.polymtl.ca (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:44:07 -0400 Message-ID: <1217954647.489883578858e@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:44:07 -0400 From: Meral Shirazipour To: Adrian Farrel References: <1217892271.48978faf23c16@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <007b01c8f702$f42c2c30$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <007b01c8f702$f42c2c30$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 132.207.67.80 X-Poly-FromMTA: (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) at Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:44:07 +0000 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi Adrian, For the PCE computation time, I was considering all that you mentioned except the compiler efficiency/software implementation dependencies. Also when you say: > In general, > for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication > takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to the > pre-existence of the PCEP session.) are we talking "worse case" PCEP communication time in the order of seconds? minutes? ..? I am assuming that: PCE response time = PCEP communication time + PCE computation time Then the total response time is some sort of a summation of the response times of all the PCEs in the PCE chain. Any further comments would be greatly apperciated. I am trying to come up with "typical/realistic" PCE response times for the single LSP computation case. I do understand that this time could greatly vary depending on the criterias you mentioned (CPU power, etc.), but just knowing if in practice it is typically in the orders of seconds, minutes, hours would be of great help to me. many thanks, Meral > Now then, Meral, > > I think computation times *might* be dependent on CPU power, loading, > compiler efficiency, software implementation, algorithm choice, network > complexity, etc. > > Some observations suggest that computation for single LSPs with normal > constraints can be achieved using CSPF and there are studies recording the > number of logical steps needed to perform such a computation. In general, > for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication > takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to the > pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > > Other observations note that some computation problems are quite hard and > need a few more cycles. In these cases, given the low power of CPUs on NEs, > the communication time may be less significant. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Meral Shirazipour" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:24 AM > Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time > > Hi, > > Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE computation > > times > > in a real network? > > I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Meral > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 10:20:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8D33A6A0A; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9FB3A6A03 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.638 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.960, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NdtWhfs4EXoW for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07EA3A68A7 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 m75HLDgv014299; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:21:14 +0100 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 m75HLBuR014273; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:21:12 +0100 Message-ID: <018001c8f71f$a8c133e0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Meral Shirazipour" References: <1217892271.48978faf23c16@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <007b01c8f702$f42c2c30$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <1217954647.489883578858e@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:21:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org I think you might predict PCEP communication time as... TCP connection setup PCEP session establishment PCEP request/response You might approximate this with a web browser or any other TCP-based application. FWIW I would expect a simple CSPF to be computed in a few hundred ms at absolute most (but probably in a less than a few tens of ms) and communication time to be of the order of one second tops. YMMV. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Meral Shirazipour" To: "Adrian Farrel" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time > Hi Adrian, > For the PCE computation time, I was considering all that you mentioned > except > the compiler efficiency/software implementation dependencies. > > Also when you say: >> In general, >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to >> the >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > > are we talking "worse case" PCEP communication time in the order of > seconds? > minutes? ..? > > I am assuming that: > PCE response time = PCEP communication time + PCE computation time > > Then the total response time is some sort of a summation of the response > times > of all the PCEs in the PCE chain. > > Any further comments would be greatly apperciated. I am trying to come up > with > "typical/realistic" PCE response times for the single LSP computation > case. I > do understand that this time could greatly vary depending on the criterias > you > mentioned (CPU power, etc.), but just knowing if in practice it is > typically in > the orders of seconds, minutes, hours would be of great help to me. > > many thanks, > Meral > >> Now then, Meral, >> >> I think computation times *might* be dependent on CPU power, loading, >> compiler efficiency, software implementation, algorithm choice, network >> complexity, etc. >> >> Some observations suggest that computation for single LSPs with normal >> constraints can be achieved using CSPF and there are studies recording >> the >> number of logical steps needed to perform such a computation. In general, >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to >> the >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) >> >> Other observations note that some computation problems are quite hard and >> need a few more cycles. In these cases, given the low power of CPUs on >> NEs, >> the communication time may be less significant. >> >> Cheers, >> Adrian >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Meral Shirazipour" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:24 AM >> Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time > > >> > Hi, >> > Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE >> > computation >> > times >> > in a real network? >> > I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Meral >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pce mailing list >> > Pce@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 10:32:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177023A6878; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:32:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37D83A6878 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SnhxJhD5+09v for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7433A682D for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m75HWilZ000685; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:32:49 -0500 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:32:44 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:32:42 -0500 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF03875A66@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <018001c8f71f$a8c133e0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] PCE computation time Thread-Index: Acj3H8+KBiFnOlURSYykqy16vU/NLgAASPQQ References: <1217892271.48978faf23c16@www.imp.polymtl.ca><007b01c8f702$f42c2c30$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe><1217954647.489883578858e@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <018001c8f71f$a8c133e0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Eric Gray" To: "Adrian Farrel" , "Meral Shirazipour" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2008 17:32:44.0393 (UTC) FILETIME=[4503FD90:01C8F721] Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Adrian, You would not take into consideration the potential for relayed communication times in the distributed PCE case? -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:21 PM > To: Meral Shirazipour > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time > > I think you might predict PCEP communication time as... > > TCP connection setup > PCEP session establishment > PCEP request/response > > You might approximate this with a web browser or any other TCP-based > application. > > FWIW I would expect a simple CSPF to be computed in a few > hundred ms at > absolute most (but probably in a less than a few tens of ms) and > communication time to be of the order of one second tops. YMMV. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Meral Shirazipour" > To: "Adrian Farrel" > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:44 PM > Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time > > > > Hi Adrian, > > For the PCE computation time, I was considering all that > you mentioned > > except > > the compiler efficiency/software implementation dependencies. > > > > Also when you say: > >> In general, > >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote > PCEP communication > >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary > according to > >> the > >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > > > > are we talking "worse case" PCEP communication time in the order of > > seconds? > > minutes? ..? > > > > I am assuming that: > > PCE response time = PCEP communication time + PCE computation time > > > > Then the total response time is some sort of a summation of > the response > > times > > of all the PCEs in the PCE chain. > > > > Any further comments would be greatly apperciated. I am > trying to come up > > with > > "typical/realistic" PCE response times for the single LSP > computation > > case. I > > do understand that this time could greatly vary depending > on the criterias > > you > > mentioned (CPU power, etc.), but just knowing if in practice it is > > typically in > > the orders of seconds, minutes, hours would be of great help to me. > > > > many thanks, > > Meral > > > >> Now then, Meral, > >> > >> I think computation times *might* be dependent on CPU > power, loading, > >> compiler efficiency, software implementation, algorithm > choice, network > >> complexity, etc. > >> > >> Some observations suggest that computation for single LSPs > with normal > >> constraints can be achieved using CSPF and there are > studies recording > >> the > >> number of logical steps needed to perform such a > computation. In general, > >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote > PCEP communication > >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary > according to > >> the > >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > >> > >> Other observations note that some computation problems are > quite hard and > >> need a few more cycles. In these cases, given the low > power of CPUs on > >> NEs, > >> the communication time may be less significant. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Adrian > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Meral Shirazipour" > >> To: > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:24 AM > >> Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time > > > > > >> > Hi, > >> > Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE > >> > computation > >> > times > >> > in a real network? > >> > I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft. > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Meral > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Pce mailing list > >> > Pce@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 10:47:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924413A67CC; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:47:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F343A6774 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UkgbOJ95vNwS for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DE83A67CC for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m75HleoY018062; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:47:41 -0400 Received: from chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca (chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca [132.207.67.80]) by www.imp.polymtl.ca (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:47:40 -0400 Message-ID: <1217958460.4898923d04a76@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:47:41 -0400 From: Meral Shirazipour To: Adrian Farrel References: <1217892271.48978faf23c16@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <007b01c8f702$f42c2c30$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <1217954647.489883578858e@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <018001c8f71f$a8c133e0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <018001c8f71f$a8c133e0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 132.207.67.80 X-Poly-FromMTA: (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) at Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:47:41 +0000 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Thanks alot... that fully answered my concern. cheers, Meral Selon Adrian Farrel : > I think you might predict PCEP communication time as... > > TCP connection setup > PCEP session establishment > PCEP request/response > > You might approximate this with a web browser or any other TCP-based > application. > > FWIW I would expect a simple CSPF to be computed in a few hundred ms at > absolute most (but probably in a less than a few tens of ms) and > communication time to be of the order of one second tops. YMMV. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Meral Shirazipour" > To: "Adrian Farrel" > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:44 PM > Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time > > > > Hi Adrian, > > For the PCE computation time, I was considering all that you mentioned > > except > > the compiler efficiency/software implementation dependencies. > > > > Also when you say: > >> In general, > >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication > >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to > >> the > >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > > > > are we talking "worse case" PCEP communication time in the order of > > seconds? > > minutes? ..? > > > > I am assuming that: > > PCE response time = PCEP communication time + PCE computation time > > > > Then the total response time is some sort of a summation of the response > > times > > of all the PCEs in the PCE chain. > > > > Any further comments would be greatly apperciated. I am trying to come up > > with > > "typical/realistic" PCE response times for the single LSP computation > > case. I > > do understand that this time could greatly vary depending on the criterias > > you > > mentioned (CPU power, etc.), but just knowing if in practice it is > > typically in > > the orders of seconds, minutes, hours would be of great help to me. > > > > many thanks, > > Meral > > > >> Now then, Meral, > >> > >> I think computation times *might* be dependent on CPU power, loading, > >> compiler efficiency, software implementation, algorithm choice, network > >> complexity, etc. > >> > >> Some observations suggest that computation for single LSPs with normal > >> constraints can be achieved using CSPF and there are studies recording > >> the > >> number of logical steps needed to perform such a computation. In general, > >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication > >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to > >> the > >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > >> > >> Other observations note that some computation problems are quite hard and > >> need a few more cycles. In these cases, given the low power of CPUs on > >> NEs, > >> the communication time may be less significant. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Adrian > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Meral Shirazipour" > >> To: > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:24 AM > >> Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time > > > > > >> > Hi, > >> > Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE > >> > computation > >> > times > >> > in a real network? > >> > I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft. > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Meral > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Pce mailing list > >> > Pce@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 11:03:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C32028C1A4; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA56928C1A4 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:03:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wz-ZoHVS97Xn for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FBB28C0F2 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m75I3gDX024235; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:03:43 -0400 Received: from chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca (chaplin.larim.polymtl.ca [132.207.67.80]) by www.imp.polymtl.ca (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:03:42 -0400 Message-ID: <1217959422.489895fe94c14@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:03:42 -0400 From: Meral Shirazipour To: Eric Gray References: <1217892271.48978faf23c16@www.imp.polymtl.ca><007b01c8f702$f42c2c30$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe><1217954647.489883578858e@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <018001c8f71f$a8c133e0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF03875A66@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF03875A66@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 132.207.67.80 X-Poly-FromMTA: (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) at Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:03:42 +0000 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Please correct me if I am missing something, I am simply adding the PCE response times of all the PCEs interrogated along the way. If the relaying is done in parallel like in : --> PCE31--> PCE32--> PCE33 / PCE1---->PCE2 ----> PCE41--> PCE42--> PCE43--> PCE44 \ -->PCE51-> PCE52 assuming in this example that all PCEs have the same response time, then the total response time will be the longest one, in this case that of : PCE1---->PCE2 ----> PCE41--> PCE42--> PCE43--> PCE44 = RESPONSE TIMES OF (PCE2 + PCE41+PCE42+ PCE43+ PCE44) Cheers, Meral Selon Eric Gray : > Adrian, > > You would not take into consideration the potential for > relayed communication times in the distributed PCE case? > > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:21 PM > > To: Meral Shirazipour > > Cc: pce@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time > > > > I think you might predict PCEP communication time as... > > > > TCP connection setup > > PCEP session establishment > > PCEP request/response > > > > You might approximate this with a web browser or any other TCP-based > > application. > > > > FWIW I would expect a simple CSPF to be computed in a few > > hundred ms at > > absolute most (but probably in a less than a few tens of ms) and > > communication time to be of the order of one second tops. YMMV. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Meral Shirazipour" > > To: "Adrian Farrel" > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:44 PM > > Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE computation time > > > > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > For the PCE computation time, I was considering all that > > you mentioned > > > except > > > the compiler efficiency/software implementation dependencies. > > > > > > Also when you say: > > >> In general, > > >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote > > PCEP communication > > >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary > > according to > > >> the > > >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > > > > > > are we talking "worse case" PCEP communication time in the order of > > > seconds? > > > minutes? ..? > > > > > > I am assuming that: > > > PCE response time = PCEP communication time + PCE computation time > > > > > > Then the total response time is some sort of a summation of > > the response > > > times > > > of all the PCEs in the PCE chain. > > > > > > Any further comments would be greatly apperciated. I am > > trying to come up > > > with > > > "typical/realistic" PCE response times for the single LSP > > computation > > > case. I > > > do understand that this time could greatly vary depending > > on the criterias > > > you > > > mentioned (CPU power, etc.), but just knowing if in practice it is > > > typically in > > > the orders of seconds, minutes, hours would be of great help to me. > > > > > > many thanks, > > > Meral > > > > > >> Now then, Meral, > > >> > > >> I think computation times *might* be dependent on CPU > > power, loading, > > >> compiler efficiency, software implementation, algorithm > > choice, network > > >> complexity, etc. > > >> > > >> Some observations suggest that computation for single LSPs > > with normal > > >> constraints can be achieved using CSPF and there are > > studies recording > > >> the > > >> number of logical steps needed to perform such a > > computation. In general, > > >> for this type of computation, we observe that a remote > > PCEP communication > > >> takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary > > according to > > >> the > > >> pre-existence of the PCEP session.) > > >> > > >> Other observations note that some computation problems are > > quite hard and > > >> need a few more cycles. In these cases, given the low > > power of CPUs on > > >> NEs, > > >> the communication time may be less significant. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Adrian > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: "Meral Shirazipour" > > >> To: > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:24 AM > > >> Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time > > > > > > > > >> > Hi, > > >> > Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE > > >> > computation > > >> > times > > >> > in a real network? > > >> > I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Meral > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > Pce mailing list > > >> > Pce@ietf.org > > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 12:35:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9373A6D2C; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:35:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C964F3A6A77 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:35:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.515, BAYES_50=0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LrRuG6ZJ663n for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBB03A6D30 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m75JaHnC020185 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:36:18 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m75JaG2I020163 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:36:17 +0100 Message-ID: <03a501c8f732$87650830$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:32:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Subject: [Pce] Help with MIB modules X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, We have several MIB Module documents. draft-ietf-pce-tc-mib-03.txt draft-ietf-pce-disc-mib-02.txt draft-kkoushik-pce-pcep-mib-01.txt These are suffering a little as Kiran has other priorities. So, as mentioned in Dublin we are looking for volunteers to help with this work. Anyone want to help? Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 5 19:31:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D983A68D8; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:31:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42923A68D8 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:31:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.395 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xl0+EsDIA4OX for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp [202.32.8.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35813A685D for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp (mailgate53.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.192]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m762VZJB002897; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:31:35 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id m762VZr10962; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:31:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from kaishu.jp.nec.com (kaishu.jp.nec.com [10.26.220.5]) by mailsv4.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m762VZdk015892; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:31:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from C08MAR60524 ([10.56.135.249] [10.56.135.249]) by mail.jp.nec.com with ESMTP; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:31:34 +0900 From: "Itaru Nishioka" To: "'JP Vasseur'" , References: Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:31:40 +0900 Organization: nec Message-Id: <007701c8f76c$8e99ec80$f987380a@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcjzHM6MDIXCRwPUGU2yxfO5Ap7uSAET6Rag Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: i-nishioka@cb.jp.nec.com List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1783874858==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1783874858== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0078_01C8F7B7.FE819480" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01C8F7B7.FE819480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In favor for both. Itaru. _____ From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:51 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) Dear WG, There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list. draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ? Thanks. JP. ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01C8F7B7.FE819480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement = and applicability)
 
In favor for both.
 
Itaru.

From: pce-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP = Vasseur
Sent:=20 Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:51 PM
To: = pce@ietf.org
Subject:=20 [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement=20 andapplicability)

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus = to adopt=20 the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in = Dublin.=20 As usual, we would like to confirm on the = list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2m= p-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if = you are in=20 favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents=20 ?

Thanks.

JP. ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01C8F7B7.FE819480-- --===============1783874858== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============1783874858==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 6 06:12:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91C03A68E1; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 06:12:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E053A68AE for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 06:12:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZZW52zG+zwiI for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 06:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DB53A6B93 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 06:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:12:28 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:12:27 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <007701c8f76c$8e99ec80$f987380a@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirementandapplicability) Thread-Index: AcjzHM6MDIXCRwPUGU2yxfO5Ap7uSAET6RagABZgqkA= References: <007701c8f76c$8e99ec80$f987380a@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp> From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2008 13:12:28.0860 (UTC) FILETIME=[13D87FC0:01C8F7C6] Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirementandapplicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1250920860==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1250920860== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8F7C6.1375E8A9" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8F7C6.1375E8A9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Folks, =20 In favor for these two docs. =20 JL =09 =09 ________________________________ From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:51 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability) =09 =09 Dear WG, =09 There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list. =09 draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt =09 Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ? =09 Thanks. =09 JP.=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8F7C6.1375E8A9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement = and applicability)
Hi Folks,
 
In favor for these two = docs.
 
JL

From: pce-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP = Vasseur
Sent:=20 Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:51 PM
To:=20 pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG = documents (P2MP=20 requirement andapplicability)

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus = to adopt=20 the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting = in=20 Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the=20 list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2m= p-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if = you are=20 in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents=20 ?

Thanks.

JP.=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8F7C6.1375E8A9-- --===============1250920860== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============1250920860==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 7 13:41:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB6228C179; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:41:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF60828C175 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:41:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MY7-3mBTyY-A for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CF828C152 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,322,1215388800"; d="scan'208,217";a="16850682" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2008 20:41:03 +0000 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 m77Kf3nQ013260 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:41:03 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m77Kf3dn028700 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:41:03 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:41:02 -0400 Received: from 10.61.81.172 ([10.61.81.172]) by xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:41:00 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522 Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:40:58 +0200 From: JP Vasseur To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Two new PCE WG documents Thread-Index: Acj4zeVbjPg/WNbJQkqfFDXWTmtrSw== Mime-version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2008 20:41:02.0948 (UTC) FILETIME=[E84E2A40:01C8F8CD] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1278; t=1218141663; x=1219005663; 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:=20Two=20new=20PCE=20WG=20documents |Sender:=20 |To:=20; bh=5iNByHdFGjVvqxs1PhUZzH1S3+zCgOI9NZ3lBtkZSiE=; b=mbOdpNX/u0wvsbgT9+WwNtL/voDlrXqjz+O7o982IQzjfR6Ho/U2KJQLfC 04lwe4RVzJX/lBkfceIjrLGeK854kMiVSDwJd2RTHFCBbSHEXkJH41Onfqkd QrS4lh0kgL; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Subject: [Pce] Two new PCE WG documents X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1630937741==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --===============1630937741== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3300993659_1474233" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3300993659_1474233 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Dear WG, In light of the good consensus for WG adoption, the two following documents are adopted as PCE WG documents. Authors, please resubmit: draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt as draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt as draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt With no change other than the name and dates. Thanks. JP. --B_3300993659_1474233 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Two new PCE WG documents Dear WG,

In light of the good consensus for WG adoption, the two following documents= are adopted as PCE WG documents.

Authors, please resubmit:
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt as draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt as draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt

With no change other than the name and dates.

Thanks.

JP. --B_3300993659_1474233-- --===============1630937741== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============1630937741==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 8 04:40:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2015F3A6D42; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:40:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C044A3A6D45 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:40:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22WVfrMHnmTH for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0A33A6CBB for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 04:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m78BeBCC020171; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:40:13 +0100 Received: from webmail1.iomartmail.com (webmail1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m78BeADB020159; Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:40:10 +0100 Message-Id: <200808081140.m78BeADB020159@mta6.iomartmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Adrian Farrel To: jpv@cisco.com, jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com, y.ikejiri@ntt.com X-Origin: 81.140.15.32 X-Account: adrian@olddog.co.uk Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:40:10 +0100 X-Uidl: 121819547226882990 X-Mailer: AtMail 4.11 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-01.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, In Dublin, JP indicated that the authors of this I-D thought it was pretty = much = ready for working group last call, so here is my review as WG chair before = we get = into the business of a last call. I think there are sections still needing to be filled in. Cheers, Adrian =3D=3D=3D idnits (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/\) shows 1 error and 7 warnings = all in = the references sections. =3D=3D=3D The I-D is currently Standards Track, I am slightly nervous about this give= n the = current implementaiton status and the fact that you are defining substantia= l new = messages and procedures. Have you considered Experiemental status? Conversely, I=E2=80=99m worried that this I-D defines the PCE-ID object tha= t is used by = some instances in BRPC. =3D=3D=3D Abstract s/where a domain is referred to as/where a domain referrs to/ s/PCE-based environments/PCE-based environments,/ s/states, statistics/states, and statistics/ =3D=3D=3D 1. Terminology Please re-order sections so that Section 1 is the Introduction. This will mean that you need to expand all of the acrinyjms in the Introduc= tion. On the other hand... AS: Autonomous System. Not used in the document. LSR: Label Switching Router. Not used in the document. TED: Traffic Engineering Database. Not used in the document. =3D=3D=3D 2. Introduction s/where a domain is referred to as/where a domain referrs to/ s/states, statistics/states, and statistics/ This document specifies procedures and extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) ([I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) in order to monitor the path computation chain and gather various performance metrics. I think you need to introduce the concept of a =E2=80=9Cpath computation ch= ain=E2=80=9D before = talking about monitoring it. I would simply move this paragraph to after th= e next = paragraph, but even then the term is not clearly explained. There is a good = paragraph in section 3.1. s/The aim of this document is to specify/This document specifies/ s/metrics collection can be gathered/metrics can be gathered/ s/one or more PCE(s)/one or more PCEs/ s/collection of a PCE state metric(s)/collection of PCE state metrics/ =3D=3D=3D 3. Path Computation Monitoring messages s/to enforce a PCE/to require a PCE/ =3D=3D=3D 3.1. Path Computation Monitoring Request message (PCMonReq) You need to mention how this message will be handled by a =E2=80=9Clegacy= =E2=80=9D PCE that = does = not recognise the message. Also how it would be handled by a PCC. OLD Note that this set of objects is by all means not limitative and may be extended in further revision of this document. NEW Note that this set of objects may be extended in future. OLD Example 1: PCC1 requests to check the path computation chain should a path computation be requested for a specific TE LSP named T1. NEW Example 1: PCC1 requests to check the path computation chain that would be used should it request a path computation a specific TE = LSP named T1. s/PCRep message also comprises a PROC-TIME/PCRep message also carries a PRO= C-TIME/ Example 3 s/contains a set of PCE-ID objects/contains a sequence of PCE-ID objects/ =3D=3D=3D 3.2. Path Monitoring Reply message (PCMonRep) If the Monitoring object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send an error message to the requesting PCC. Which error code? =3D=3D=3D 4. Path Computation Monitoring Objects s/computation request./computation requests./ =3D=3D=3D 4.1. MONITORING Object The MONITORING object MUST be present within PCMonReq and PCMonRep messages ("out of band" monitoring requests) and MAY be carried within PCERep and PCReq messages ("in band" monitoring requests). There MUST be exactly once instance of the MONITORING object There is a slight contradiction between MAY and MUST. if more than one instance of the MONITORING object is present, the recipient MUST only process the first instance and ignore other instances. But now you have a contradiction with the MUST as well. Perhaps this should read... The MONITORING object MUST be present within PCMonReq and PCMonRep messages ("out of band" monitoring requests) and MAY be carried within PCERep and PCReq messages ("in band" monitoring requests). There SHOULD NOT be more than one instance of the MONITORING object: if more than one instance of the MONITORING object is present, the = recipient MUST process the first instance and MUST ignore other instances. Please indent the bit numbering correctly +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Flags |I|C|P|G|L| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Very unusual split. 10 bits reserved and 22 bits of flags. OLD +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | monitoring-id-number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NEW +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Monitoring-id-number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ s/Flags: 18 bits/Flags: 22 bits/ The P bit MUST always be set in a PCMonRep message if also set in the corresponding PCMonReq message. No objection, but why? Doesn=E2=80=99t the PROC-TIME object convey the same= information? I note that the L and G bits are not defined in the PCMonRep. Anyway, you need to talk not just about PCMonReq/Rep, but the use in PCReq/= Rep (cf = C bit). OLD I (Incomplete) - 1 bit: the I bit MUST be set by a PCE that supports the PCMonReq message, which does not trigger any policy violation but that cannot provide the set of requested performance metrics for unspecified reasons. NEW I (Incomplete) - 1 bit: If a PCE supports a received PCMonReq = message and that message does not trigger any policy violation, but the PCE cannot provide any of the set of requested performance = metrics for unspecified reasons, the PCE MUST set the I bit. The I bit has no meaning in a request and SHOULD be ignored on receipt. Question... Monitoring-id-number (32 bits). The monitoring-id-number value combined with the source IP address of the PCC and the PCE address uniquely identify the monitoring request context. =E2=80=9Cthe PCE address=E2=80=9D? The request is not specifically targeted at a PCE, or may include a list of= PCEs. = How does this work? Isn=E2=80=99t the PCC ID and the monitoring-id-number s= ufficient? = Later = you say that the same monitoring-id-number can be used for requests sent to = different PCEs, but this seems to be ambiguous for chains of PCEs. And you = say = =E2=80=9CThe = path computation monitoring reply is unambiguously identified by the IP sou= rce = address of the replying PCE=E2=80=9D but the replying PCE might not be know= n by the = source = PCC. Question The monitoring-id- number MUST be incremented each time a new monitoring is sent to a PCE. Same problem as was raised by the IESG for PCEP. The requirement is just th= at this = number allows disambiguation of active requests/responses. Why do you = require =E2=80=9Cincrement=E2=80=9D and by what value should the increment = be made? s/Conversely, different/Conversely, a different/ No optional TLVs are currently defined. So, why do we have TLVs? Would it be better to put some of the response obj= ects = into this object as TLVs? E.g., PROC-TIME, CONGESTION, etc. =3D=3D=3D 4.2. PCE-ID Object A set of PCE-ID objects may be inserted within a PCReq or a PCMonReq message to specify the PCE for which PCE state metrics are requested and in a PCMonRep or a PCRep message to record the IP address of the PCE reporting PCE state metrics or that was involved in the path computation chain. So... If I send a PCReq with a list of PCE-IDs because these are the PCEs I want = to = process the request, can I control the list of PCEs that supply the monitor= ing = information? For example, I way want the processing time form just the last= PCE of = a chain of PCEs. Please align the bit numbers on the figures correctly. A PCE MUST use the same IP address as the address used in the PCE- ADDRESS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] should a dynamic discovery mechanism be used for PCE discovery. Should that read =E2=80=9CA PCC MUST ...=E2=80=9D ? After all, the PCE has = no control over the = PCE- ID supplied in a request. =3D=3D=3D 4.3. PROC-TIME Object The PROC-TIME object MUST be present within a PCMonRep or a PCRep message if the P bit of the MONITORING object carried within the corresponding PCMonReq or PCReq message is set. =E2=80=9CMUST=E2=80=9D? = Compare with the I bit. Consider local policy that says =E2=80=9CI am not going to answer that=E2= =80=9D s/the PROC-TIME object always report/the PROC-TIME object always reports/ s/thus the E bits/thus the E bit/ Please align the bit numbers correctly. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Processing-time |E| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Wouldn=E2=80=99t it be more sensible to move the E bit into the Flags field= so that all = time fields are the same format? Current-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the The field is called =E2=80=9CProcessing-time=E2=80=9D in the figure. =3D=3D=3D 4.4. CONGESTION Object C (Congestion) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that PCE is congested, in which case the congestion duration may be non nul. When cleared this indicates that the PCE is not congested. Congestion duration - 16 bits: This field indicates in seconds the estimated congestion duration. Confused! What is the meaning of C-bit set, Congestion Duration =3D 0? =3D=3D=3D 4.5. TIMESTAMP Object A TIMESTAMP object will be specified in a further revision of this document Will you do this before WG last call, or will you delete this section? =3D=3D=3D 5. Multi-destination monitoring Capitilise the seciton heading, please. In a further revision of this document, a new object will be specified allowing a PCC or a user to gather PCE state metrics for a set of destinations using a single PCMonReq message. Need to resolve this TBD. =3D=3D=3D 7. Elements of procedure I bit processing: as indicated in section Section 4.1, the I bit MUST be set by a PCE that supports the PCMonReq message, which does not trigger any policy violation but that cannot provide the set of required performance metrics for unspecified reasons. Once set, the I bit MUST NOT be changed by a receiving PCE. Revise for clarity as proposed for section 4.1 Reception of a PCMonReq message: upon receiving a PCMonReq message: 1) If the PCE does not support the PCMonReq message, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=3D14 and Error-value=3D1. Wait a moment. You are defining a new error code to handle non-support of a= new = feature. Surely you should use an existing error code as see in the PCEP sp= ec. For = example, error-type=3D2 =3D=3D=3D 8. Manageability Considerations To be addressed in a further revision of this document. Please resolve this TBD =3D=3D=3D 9. To be considered in a further revision of this document It might be desirable to modify the format of the PCMonReq and PCMonRep messages to support the bundling of multiple performance metrics collection for a set of TE LSPs. Please resolve this TBD =3D=3D=3D 10. IANA Considerations Need to give better references to the registries defined in the PCEP I-D. =3D=3D=3D 11. Security Considerations To be addressed in a further revision of this document. Hmmm? _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 11 04:41:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88EF3A6859; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:41:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E6F3A6859 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.546, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 416DzEXwgckr for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241B43A67D2 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7BBe1Bh025445 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:40:05 +0100 Received: from webmail1.iomartmail.com (webmail1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7BBe1Aa025438 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:40:01 +0100 Message-Id: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Adrian Farrel To: pce@ietf.org X-Origin: 81.140.15.32 X-Account: adrian@olddog.co.uk Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:40:01 +0100 X-Uidl: 1218454801101268786 X-Mailer: AtMail 4.11 Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Following up some actions from Dublin... Can you please express an opinion on whether the following thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 11 22:16:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA513A6D4A; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:16:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527E13A6BAD for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:16:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TER7fVIXBP1J for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:601:12:230:48ff:fe22:3a84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9DE3A68CE for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F04EC87D; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:16:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp [2001:200:601:1300:172:19:83:254]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734C8EC86F; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:16:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp195.wlan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.110.195]) by platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCBB578111; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:16:08 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <48A11C97.9000705@kddilabs.jp> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:16:07 +0900 From: Tomohiro Otani User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org SGkgQWRyaWFuLAoKSSBhbSBmaW5lIHdpdGggdGhvc2UuCgpSZWdhcmRzLAoKVG9tbwoKCkFkcmlh biBGYXJyZWwg44GV44KT44Gv5pu444GN44G+44GX44GfOgo+IEhpLAo+Cj4gRm9sbG93aW5nIHVw IHNvbWUgYWN0aW9ucyBmcm9tIER1Ymxpbi4uLgo+Cj4gQ2FuIHlvdSBwbGVhc2UgZXhwcmVzcyBh biBvcGluaW9uIG9uIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyB0aHJlc3MgSS1EcyBhcmUgcmVhZHkg dG8gCj4gYmUgL3Nob3VsZCBiZSBhZG9wdGVkIGFzIFBDRSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIEktRHMuCj4K PiBkcmFmdC16aGFvLXBjZXAtcDJtcC1leHRlbnNpb24KPiBkcmFmdC1vdGFuaS1wY2UtZ21wbHMt YXBzLXJlcQo+IGRyYWZ0LW5pc2hpb2thLXBjZS1zdmVjLWxpc3QKPgo+IFRoYW5rcywKPiBBZHJp YW4KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwo+IFBj ZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKPiBQY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcKPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWls bWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQo+Cj4KPiAgIAoKCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fClBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKUGNlQGlldGYub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8v d3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlCg== From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 17 17:47:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474F53A6809; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:47:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D2D3A6809 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:47:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.51 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sb9g7AhwMLS1 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp [202.32.8.193]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA9D3A679C for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp (mailgate53D.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.160]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m7I0ltOx010622; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:47:55 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id m7I0lti16949; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:47:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from saigo.jp.nec.com (saigo.jp.nec.com [10.26.220.6]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m7I0lsLC007181; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:47:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from C08AUG00201 ([10.56.131.165] [10.56.131.165]) by mail.jp.nec.com with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:41:33 +0900 From: "Itaru Nishioka" To: , References: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:41:33 +0900 Organization: NEC Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acj7pyptJPO2Y/jURCWZI8aA+BmvWQFInueg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18000 Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: i-nishioka@cb.jp.nec.com List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi I would support these draft as WG I-Ds. (for the last one from one of the authors.) Thanks, Itaru. > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:40 PM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > > Hi, > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following > thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working > group I-Ds. > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 17 18:10:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC603A6824; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:10:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A423A6824 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KdQJDDp9fPu7 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D97E3A6877 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:10:18 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,224,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="17790691" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2008 01:10:12 +0000 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 m7I1ACpw020550; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:10:12 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7I1ACcY017577; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:10:12 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:10:12 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:08:54 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds Thread-Index: Acj7pyptJPO2Y/jURCWZI8aA+BmvWQFInuegAAE/W0A= References: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2008 01:10:12.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A3115E0:01C900CF] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=949; t=1219021812; x=1219885812; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Zafar=20Ali=20(zali)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Pce]=20Poll=20on=20further=20WG=20I-Ds |Sender:=20 |To:=20,=20; bh=ZOfEKHDs5ngAQsiExqoC6QEvlmBAZ1vc0g4VCP6TKxE=; b=FlQk07RSeJNOuXL+SaRE1FEruh2gzBnUH7okhDAkh2oVujk9LfFW9ulKlN J33qcKree6kxhnY/nF/4g5I5bMo3QTsuOtKyz/lMGUV1ERII4cF+flHOtmZW E8esP3JKV5; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of > > Adrian Farrel > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:40 PM > > To: pce@ietf.org > > Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > > > > Hi, > > > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following > thress I-Ds > > are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. > > > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req In favor for both. > > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Absent. > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 18 09:24:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B6F3A6D43; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E372E28C149 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F6pKWxwvqiCo for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276DC3A6D23 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,229,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="141473458" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2008 16:24:13 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7IGODNQ029032; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:13 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7IGODpU016917; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:24:13 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:12 -0700 Message-ID: <70BC84B185C3EE448EDB7AB8956D3B0E06392D38@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds Thread-Index: Acj7p0Ot4MFvIHzLTVSq/j9RXFshCQFp46cg References: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> From: "Dean Cheng (dcheng)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2008 16:24:13.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA0B72B0:01C9014E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=740; t=1219076653; x=1219940653; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dcheng@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dean=20Cheng=20(dcheng)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Pce]=20Poll=20on=20further=20WG=20I-Ds |Sender:=20; bh=pNomSzqVOWtobZdQ4POHcPHZDZqOATsrQVRRos4DeMk=; b=Z2HBnIYT+O7lMINtd+Tnci/JzLUlOAyyjcG0kJkiA4og83NBYrpLXYoWO5 KFoyyFBhfDwR03jiPRnvmEb7RgXgX6n2GyQJ1qbWmXhiZLt3EvM0w/9mmhMN pzRyL9Iamp; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dcheng@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Yes for all. Dean > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:40 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > > Hi, > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following > thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working > group I-Ds. > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 18 14:20:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7506B3A68F1; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:20:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAEC3A6852 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gJplm1EpmDvc for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8173A68F1 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b11so1158922nfh.39 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.70.14 with SMTP id s14mr8624407eba.79.1219094453897; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Serenity ( [88.97.23.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t2sm13889001gve.9.2008.08.18.14.20.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:20:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel King" To: References: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:20:59 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c90178$515e7d20$f41b7760$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acj7pyptLCPuB7cqRUqAdIyb+FG8wwF0K0Mg Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi PCE'ers, I would like to support all three documents as WG I-Ds. I am a co-author for draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension and draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 11 August 2008 12:40 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds Hi, Following up some actions from Dublin... Can you please express an opinion on whether the following thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 18 22:14:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCC93A67FA; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDA53A67D4 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7AW7MFsQThsU for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:601:12:230:48ff:fe22:3a84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E4D3A677C for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02495EC8C0 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:14:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp [2001:200:601:1300:172:19:83:254]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD12AEC8BE for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:14:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:601:2450:7469:88fe:6628:4597]) by platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F968578111 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:14:05 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <48AA5691.2030100@cn.kddilabs.jp> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:13:53 +0900 From: "Ogaki, Kenichi" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi All, Yes for all. Best regards, Kenichi >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel >> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:40 PM >> To: pce@ietf.org >> Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds >> >> Hi, >> >> Following up some actions from Dublin... >> >> Can you please express an opinion on whether the following >> thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working >> group I-Ds. >> >> draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension >> draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req >> draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 18 23:05:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243743A67FA; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:05:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078793A6A37 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:05:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z2Pr9Qfy71HN for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEE23A68C6 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:05:10 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:05:09 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <005701c90178$515e7d20$f41b7760$@net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds Thread-Index: Acj7pyptLCPuB7cqRUqAdIyb+FG8wwF0K0MgABJmiQA= References: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> <005701c90178$515e7d20$f41b7760$@net> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2008 06:05:10.0155 (UTC) FILETIME=[895B55B0:01C901C1] Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi All, I support these three docs as WG doc. Regards, JL > > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 11 August 2008 12:40 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > > Hi, > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following > thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working > group I-Ds. > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 19 05:07:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73993A69B9; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAC53A69B9 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:07:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WSnat8sLMpGp for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5CA3A63C9 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so1236206yxg.49 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:07:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=q9C1PtwqZ4RiPksnQemAJb1kco0/ApIxCZDBrbGEHTU=; b=XR/bzovXI4uHBG+oc4vufX00vgvgBi4vvwewrrd5hR3uGWEeptEy1gX3W//UqmIR2F 5+4gH10nzIE2P1v2EWSUj+5cO7FTnhwcESzwqFhmKH5DfOxIcUfeye7IJP+YLevlEVAG 9lGpMe7nBvn31EOCKso12Y30VFnUZPaQugxYQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=wEHxe9SFYbVcjqhPNdo5XvLQ45Z3+XVWo44W7DjzaZpH9Nvd+YxqtfNBqe9hAH4sC8 wAdIokFCzD+7+0KW2uvVcMMgLKFoSsApq9FlRb1+6io4xzRUuCSblNGdBzrpMfPnV7uN 2WHOjU4mjmUOdb11U3879+6ik1qGI73uV31IM= Received: by 10.114.208.20 with SMTP id f20mr6414503wag.147.1219147667774; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.19.13 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <70452ae70808190507l7af0ea96w73f73bc7e0ce4642@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:07:47 -0400 From: "Raveendra Torvi" To: pce@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1269858556==" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org --===============1269858556== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_6700_27548017.1219147667775" ------=_Part_6700_27548017.1219147667775 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In favor. Ravi On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following thress I-Ds are > ready to > be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ------=_Part_6700_27548017.1219147667775 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
In favor.
Ravi

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,

Following up some actions from Dublin...

Can you please express an opinion on whether the following thress I-Ds are ready to
be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds.

draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension
draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req
draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list

Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

------=_Part_6700_27548017.1219147667775-- --===============1269858556== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --===============1269858556==-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 19 07:28:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1333A6B1F; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3CE3A6B47 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uWzElO7uB-rS for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F613A6818 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K5U0086OQVH3A@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:28:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.3]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K5U00AJOQVHRV@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:28:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from HuaLiuSC ([12.148.244.42]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K5U002KQQVBWM@szxml01-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:28:29 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:27:57 -0400 From: Autumn Liu In-reply-to: To: pce@ietf.org Message-id: <000301c90207$d9ff3ea0$5ef8fa0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: Acj75Oot3PlG6h7fQ1iIgFTwwIJG4QGIp4Ug References: Subject: Re: [Pce] Pce Digest, Vol 48, Issue 8 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Yes for all. Autumn -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of pce-request@ietf.org Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:00 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Pce Digest, Vol 48, Issue 8 Send Pce mailing list submissions to pce@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to pce-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at pce-owner@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Pce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Poll on further WG I-Ds (Adrian Farrel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:40:01 +0100 From: Adrian Farrel Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds To: pce@ietf.org Message-ID: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, Following up some actions from Dublin... Can you please express an opinion on whether the following thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list Thanks, Adrian ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce End of Pce Digest, Vol 48, Issue 8 ********************************** _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 19 08:01:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364223A6A8D; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DD83A69B6 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:01:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gCL41XOrrCVN for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC88E3A69B7 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.9.16]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K5U00G97RSNU0@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:48:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from L73682 ([10.124.12.74]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K5U000QXRSKUS@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:48:23 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:48:14 -0500 From: Young Lee In-reply-to: To: pce@ietf.org Message-id: <005801c9020a$9c2c7ea0$4a0c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: AckBZKj4hbvsM/zgSzCKh1ggTkJnEQApdRqw References: Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org I support all three. Young -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of pce-request@ietf.org Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:00 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Pce Digest, Vol 48, Issue 10 Send Pce mailing list submissions to pce@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to pce-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at pce-owner@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Pce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Poll on further WG I-Ds (Itaru Nishioka) 2. Re: Poll on further WG I-Ds (Zafar Ali (zali)) 3. Re: Poll on further WG I-Ds (Dean Cheng (dcheng)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:41:33 +0900 From: "Itaru Nishioka" Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds To: , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi I would support these draft as WG I-Ds. (for the last one from one of the authors.) Thanks, Itaru. > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:40 PM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > > Hi, > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following > thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working > group I-Ds. > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:08:54 -0400 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds To: , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of > > Adrian Farrel > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:40 PM > > To: pce@ietf.org > > Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > > > > Hi, > > > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following > thress I-Ds > > are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. > > > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req In favor for both. > > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Absent. > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:24:12 -0700 From: "Dean Cheng (dcheng)" Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds To: , Message-ID: <70BC84B185C3EE448EDB7AB8956D3B0E06392D38@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yes for all. Dean > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:40 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > > Hi, > > Following up some actions from Dublin... > > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following > thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working > group I-Ds. > > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce End of Pce Digest, Vol 48, Issue 10 *********************************** _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 19 09:45:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42B23A6D12; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 94DCF3A6B85; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080819164501.94DCF3A6B85@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-13.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF. Title : Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) Author(s) : A. Ayyangar, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-13.txt Pages : 77 Date : 2008-08-19 This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future.Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-13.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-13.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-08-19093502.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --NextPart-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 19 09:57:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A52B3A6D29; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:57:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B3A3A6D29 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.369 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_20=-0.74, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NAdHSa-ocdqS for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D2A3A6D1E for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:57:23 -0700 (PDT) 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 m7JGvI9B021071; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:57:21 +0100 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 m7JGvHOV021065; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:57:18 +0100 Message-ID: <026301c9021c$a3505320$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , , , , References: <20080819164501.A57233A6876@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:57:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep@tools.ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Holders of Discusses on draft-ietf-pce-pcep X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, A group of you have Discusses on this I-D. This revision does not address all of the issues raised, but bites off a large chunk. I will send out an email shortly to describe what has changed in the hope that some of you will be able to clear. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:45 PM Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-pce-pcep-13.txt > New version (-13) has been submitted for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-13.txt. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-13.txt > Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 24 04:47:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0453A6B3F; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9873A6907 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fDoHtdzvAiUz for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0EC3A68D5 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:47:24 -0700 (PDT) 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 m7OBl6ZW016141 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:47:08 +0100 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 m7OBl6Xb016135 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: <045701c905df$21210db0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:47:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Subject: [Pce] Test email X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Just testing the list which seems to be having some trouble _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 24 04:49:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C933A6BAF; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:49:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F923A6B3F for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:49:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3Rl+oxiSUzl for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2912A3A6AC4 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:49:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 m7OBnpX1016404 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:49:51 +0100 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 m7OBnpaO016398 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:49:51 +0100 Message-ID: <045b01c905df$837ef030$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:49:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Subject: [Pce] Objective Function I-D : Last Call Done X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Re-send as the list seems to have fumbled the previous copy. === Hi, This last call ended with no comments. Apart from my review, I don't see any comments on the list for 18 months (although I know some comments were handled off-line). Before progressing this further, I would like to hear a few people say "I have reviewed this draft, and have no comments. I think it is ready to progress to be an RFC." Thanks, Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Farrel" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:20 PM > Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call > > > Hi, > > This email starts a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt > > (The only differences from draft-ietf-pce-of-03.txt are that I reformatted > the document to get the indentation right, re-ordered the sections so that > the Introduction is the first section, expanded some acronyms where they > first show up, ran I-D nits and fixed the errors, and regenerated the > table of contents. Sometimes I feel like I am a cross between your > secretary and your mother!) > > The last call will end at 9am GMT Wednesday 20th August. > > Please send your comments to the list. > > Thanks, > Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 27 08:19:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AAF3A6C49; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:19:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1ED3A6AD5 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mt-p9VevyuHn for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9D228B56A for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.9.16]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K6900H05MJQV5@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:19:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Z73671a ([10.192.21.54]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K69004P5MJLGG@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:19:02 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:18:48 -0400 From: Quintin Zhao In-reply-to: To: pce@ietf.org Message-id: <001501c90858$34cdb310$3adafea9@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: AckCHLvOcwkfStmtRAa2zFoYE43eSAGOx3AQ References: Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, I would like to support all three documents as WG I-Ds. Regards, Quintin -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 11 August 2008 12:40 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds Hi, Following up some actions from Dublin... Can you please express an opinion on whether the following thress I-Ds are ready to be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ************************ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 27 13:45:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8823A6A17; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:45:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id BC15F3A69B2; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080827204501.BC15F3A69B2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF. Title : draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt Author(s) : S. Yasukawa, A. Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2008-08-08 The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Extensions to the MPLS and GMPLS signaling and routing protocols have been made in support of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This document examines the applicability of PCE to path computation for P2MP TE LSPs in MPLS and GMPLS networks. It describes the motivation for using a PCE to compute these paths, and examines which of the PCE architectural models are appropriate. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-08-27133332.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --NextPart-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 27 13:45:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1273A68C2; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id CB8E73A69BA; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080827204501.CB8E73A69BA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF. Title : PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for Point to Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Author(s) : S. Yasukawa, A. Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2008-08-08 The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Extensions to the MPLS and GMPLS signaling and routing protocols have been made in support of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The use of PCE in MPLS networks is already established, and since P2MP TE LSP routes are sometimes complex to compute, it is likely that PCE will be used for P2MP LSPs. Generic requirements for a communication protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs are presented in "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements". This document complements the generic requirements and presents a detailed set of PCC-PCE communication protocol requirements for point-to-multipoint MPLS/GMPLS traffic engineering. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-08-27133351.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --NextPart-- From pce-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 27 17:04:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7A328C2C2; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id AF10F3A69F7; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: <20080828000410.AF10F3A69F7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Internet Architecture Board , pce mailing list , pce chair , RFC Editor Subject: [Pce] Protocol Action: 'Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions' to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions ' as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-06.txt Technical Summary The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs. This document presents PCEP extensions for route exclusions. The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path computation in support of traffic engineering in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. When a Path Computation Client (PCC) requests a PCE for a route, it may be useful for the PCC to specify, as constraints to the path computation, abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the computed route. Such constraints are termed route exclusions. Working Group Summary The document has been discussed and reviewed by several key WG members. Good consensus reported within the WG. No review by non WG members that has been considered necessary. The solution specified in this document has a good support in the WG, and satisfies a well specified requirement for the PCEP protocol (RFC4657). Document Quality There is one known implementation of this document with several other unknown implementations. An interoperability event (ISOCRE) with multiple implementations is planned. Personnel JP Vasseur is the document shepherd. Ross Callon is the responsible AD. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 29 08:02:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695B43A6A34; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:02:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8383A6896 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:16:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dE2w-9PQZ5Tj for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga01-in.huawei.com (usaga01-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E363A6858 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K6C00998H72U0@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com ([172.17.1.36]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K6C00DDOH71L1@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.24.1.6] (Forwarded-For: [75.47.111.216]) by szxmc04-in.huawei.com (mshttpd); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:15:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:15:57 -0500 From: hanjianrui 32886 To: pce@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006) Content-language: zh-CN Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: zh-CN Priority: normal X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:02:01 -0700 Subject: Re: [Pce] Objective Function I-D : Last Call Done X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I have reviewed this draft, and have no comments. I think it is ready to progress to be an RFC. Thanks! Best regards, Rebecca Han ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 12:49 PM Subject: [Pce] Objective Function I-D : Last Call Done > Re-send as the list seems to have fumbled the previous copy. > > === > > Hi, > > This last call ended with no comments. > > Apart from my review, I don't see any comments on the list for 18 months > (although I know some comments were handled off-line). > > Before progressing this further, I would like to hear a few people say "I > have reviewed this draft, and have no comments. I think it is ready to > progress to be an RFC." > > Thanks, > Adrian >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adrian Farrel" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:20 PM >> Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call >> >> >> Hi, >> >> This email starts a two week working group last call on >> draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt >> >> (The only differences from draft-ietf-pce-of-03.txt are that I >> reformatted >> the document to get the indentation right, re-ordered the sections so >> that >> the Introduction is the first section, expanded some acronyms where they >> first show up, ran I-D nits and fixed the errors, and regenerated the >> table of contents. Sometimes I feel like I am a cross between your >> secretary and your mother!) >> >> The last call will end at 9am GMT Wednesday 20th August. >> >> Please send your comments to the list. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 29 09:30:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D147E28C0DD; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143053A6A63; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_50=0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tPGUPIyJINn1; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD743A6A59; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m7TGU47B007616; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:30:06 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7TGU3ej007600; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:30:03 +0100 Message-ID: <0a8601c909f4$7c014ce0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:29:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Comments on ITU's Work Plan for Optical Transport Networks X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, We received a liaison back in February (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/425/) asking for our comments on ITU-T Study Group 15's "Optical Transport Networks & Technologies Standardization Work Plan" (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com15/otn/index.html) Please let me know by Friday September 5th if you have any comments you would like us to make. If I don't receive anything, I will send a response to thank them for keeping us informed and asking them to share any future work plans with us. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 31 04:00:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0419C3A6870; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:00:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FE13A6870 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:00:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gZ7anQm-+cE for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4373A67F1 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so642767eyd.31 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.10.8 with SMTP id 8mr4674073ebj.107.1220180459606; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Serenity ( [88.97.23.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m5sm11549771gve.3.2008.08.31.04.00.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:00:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel King" To: References: <045b01c905df$837ef030$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <045b01c905df$837ef030$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:01:04 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c90b58$dde3a100$99aae300$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: AckF34ogpTmJ/OqeTneBEP5NPX4PuAFeQRnQ Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] Objective Function I-D : Last Call Done X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hello Adrian & Objective Function authors, I think the document is ready to progress. I have reviewed it and have no comments, except that is a useful document. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 24 August 2008 12:50 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Objective Function I-D : Last Call Done Re-send as the list seems to have fumbled the previous copy. === Hi, This last call ended with no comments. Apart from my review, I don't see any comments on the list for 18 months (although I know some comments were handled off-line). Before progressing this further, I would like to hear a few people say "I have reviewed this draft, and have no comments. I think it is ready to progress to be an RFC." Thanks, Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Farrel" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:20 PM > Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call > > > Hi, > > This email starts a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt > > (The only differences from draft-ietf-pce-of-03.txt are that I reformatted > the document to get the indentation right, re-ordered the sections so that > the Introduction is the first section, expanded some acronyms where they > first show up, ran I-D nits and fixed the errors, and regenerated the > table of contents. Sometimes I feel like I am a cross between your > secretary and your mother!) > > The last call will end at 9am GMT Wednesday 20th August. > > Please send your comments to the list. > > Thanks, > Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 31 23:22:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A0A3A6A38; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:22:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18F73A6A38 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:22:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ghE1pIhclCm for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bizpsie3.9services.com (bizpsie3.9services.com [84.96.93.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2D53A69BF for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pooky.marben-products.com ([86.65.15.130]) by bizpsie3.9services.com with 9services id 9JN81a00A2oN1dS03JN8sC; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:22:09 +0200 X-Biz3: ?? X-VRSPAM-SCORE: -250.00 Received: from AOFR11476 (aofr11476.marben-products.com [192.168.7.180]) by pooky.marben-products.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m816M7Vr021990; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 08:22:08 +0200 From: "Fabien Verhaeghe" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" , Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 08:21:27 +0200 Message-ID: <000001c90bfa$fafa7fa0$b407a8c0@marbenproducts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckF34mHhMwO+uWmTSCoPeHzCiEyOwGGzdnQ In-Reply-To: <045b01c905df$837ef030$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Subject: Re: [Pce] Objective Function I-D : Last Call Done X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I have reviewed this draft, and have no comments. I think it is ready to progress to be an RFC. Best regards Fabien > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de > Adrian Farrel > Envoy=E9=A0: dimanche 24 ao=FBt 2008 13:50 > =C0=A0: pce@ietf.org > Objet=A0: [Pce] Objective Function I-D : Last Call Done > = > Re-send as the list seems to have fumbled the previous copy. > = > =3D=3D=3D > = > Hi, > = > This last call ended with no comments. > = > Apart from my review, I don't see any comments on the list for 18 months > (although I know some comments were handled off-line). > = > Before progressing this further, I would like to hear a few people say "I > have reviewed this draft, and have no comments. I think it is ready to > progress to be an RFC." > = > Thanks, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adrian Farrel" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:20 PM > > Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call > > > > > > Hi, > > > > This email starts a two week working group last call on > > draft-ietf-pce-of-04.txt > > > > (The only differences from draft-ietf-pce-of-03.txt are that I > reformatted > > the document to get the indentation right, re-ordered the sections so > that > > the Introduction is the first section, expanded some acronyms where they > > first show up, ran I-D nits and fixed the errors, and regenerated the > > table of contents. Sometimes I feel like I am a cross between your > > secretary and your mother!) > > > > The last call will end at 9am GMT Wednesday 20th August. > > > > Please send your comments to the list. > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > = > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From pce-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 31 23:24:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3DB28C18D; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F343A6A08 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:23:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DUhVgsP4pLox for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bizpsie4.9services.com (bizpsie4.9services.com [84.96.93.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879FE3A6AEC for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pooky.marben-products.com ([86.65.15.130]) by bizpsie4.9services.com with 9services id 9JQi1a0022oN1dS04JQi9f; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:24:42 +0200 X-Biz3: ?? X-VRSPAM-SCORE: -100.00 Received: from AOFR11476 (aofr11476.marben-products.com [192.168.7.180]) by pooky.marben-products.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m816Nnes021993; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 08:23:49 +0200 From: "Fabien Verhaeghe" To: , Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 08:23:09 +0200 Message-ID: <000101c90bfb$37a6e0b0$b407a8c0@marbenproducts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acj7p0JFQwwyT8w1Spu53QLp+oWbwAQU9YNQ In-Reply-To: <200808111140.m7BBe1Aa025438@mta7.iomartmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org I support all three documents. Best regards Fabien > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de > Adrian Farrel > Envoy=E9=A0: lundi 11 ao=FBt 2008 13:40 > =C0=A0: pce@ietf.org > Objet=A0: [Pce] Poll on further WG I-Ds > = > Hi, > = > Following up some actions from Dublin... > = > Can you please express an opinion on whether the following thress I-Ds are > ready to > be /should be adopted as PCE working group I-Ds. > = > draft-zhao-pcep-p2mp-extension > draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req > draft-nishioka-pce-svec-list > = > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce