From nobody Sat Mar 1 15:33:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D401A0B36; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 15:33:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ii1FQRJfEvxt; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 15:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744E31A0B38; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 15:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEC60273; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:33:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 23:32:42 +0000 Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 23:33:02 +0000 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.30]) by dfweml702-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.27]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 15:32:52 -0800 From: Leeyoung To: CCAMP , "sdn@irtf.org" , "pce@ietf.org" , alto Thread-Topic: Introduciton to ACTN (Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks) Thread-Index: Ac81po/wxbg58GUPSVeXGMjcLTkZKA== Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 23:32:51 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC7AC3@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.129.96] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC7AC3dfweml706chmchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/OIqgTCS8uzUUQU8N7vCbtQJOmmc Cc: "actn@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] Introduciton to ACTN (Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:33:09 -0000 --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC7AC3dfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I'd like to introduce a new activity in the routing area called ACTN (Abstr= action and Control of Transport Networks). This work was first introduced in Vancouver in some of the WG/RG meetings l= ike PCE-WG and SDN-RG and a bar BoF. We have progressed quite a bit since t= hen, and I believe some of the recipients of the list WGs would be interest= ed in this work. Updated information can be found in the following pointer: https://sites.go= ogle.com/site/actnbof/ that include an initial charter, internet-drafts, an= d previous meeting information, etc. If you have any question about this work and informal bar BoF meeting(s) we= are planning on in London, please feel free to contact me. Best Regards, Young --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC7AC3dfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

I’d like to introduce a new activity in the ro= uting area called ACTN (Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks).

 

This work was first introduced in Vancouver in some = of the WG/RG meetings like PCE-WG and SDN-RG and a bar BoF. We have progres= sed quite a bit since then, and I believe some of the recipients of the lis= t WGs would be interested in this work.

 

Updated information can be found in the following po= inter: https://sites.google.com/site/actnbof/ that include an initial charter,= internet-drafts, and previous meeting information, etc.

 

If you have any question about this work and informa= l bar BoF meeting(s) we are planning on in London, please feel free to cont= act me.

 

Best Regards,

Young

 

--_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC7AC3dfweml706chmchi_-- From nobody Sun Mar 2 18:21:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79711A0BFA for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:21:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m1iOcih-8mnU for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:21:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC921A0BE0 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBR18992; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 02:21:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:21:06 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.34) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:21:27 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.22]) by SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:21:16 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: Ina Minei , Cyril Margaria , Ramon Casellas , "Dhruv Dhody" Thread-Topic: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHPMcxNobG2doiZKUqv4mIrhOE3bJrGSUIAgAALHgCAAJidcIAAW6uAgAAIyYCAAJBYgIAAQfsAgAAijICAAfCqIIAAs90AgAOuERA= Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:21:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75543CA4@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <530EDDC0.8000206@cttc.es> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B3020D6C3SZXEMA512MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/VSwajjnFbciTz6Hyv3oBOhW4riA Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 02:21:39 -0000 --_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B3020D6C3SZXEMA512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGksIEluYSwgYW5kIGFsbCwNCg0KICAgQXMgZm9yIGIpLCBJIGRvIG5vdCB0aGluayBpdCBpcyBl bnRpcmVseSB0cnVlLiAgSW4gdGhlIHJlc3RvcmF0aW9uIHNlY3Rpb24oU2VjdGlvbiA1LjQuMiks IEl0IG1lbnRpb25zIHRoZSBleGlzdGluZyBtZXRob2QgcHJvdmlkZWQgYnkgUkZDNTUyMSBhbmQg dGhlIGFkdmFudGFnZSBvZiBhIHN0YXRlZnVsIFBDRS4gU28sIHRoaXMgaXMgYSBnb29kIGV4YW1w bGUgb2YgdXNpbmcgUExTUC1JRCBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIHByb3ZpZGluZyBkZXRhaWxlZCBMU1AgaW5m b3JtYXRpb24gKHN1Y2ggYXMgRVJPIGV0Yy4pLCBldmVuIHRob3VnaCBJdCBtYXkgbm90IGJlIGFz IG9idmlvdXMgYXMgeW91IHdhbnQgaXQuDQoNCkFub3RoZXIgcmVsYXRlZCBleGFtcGxlLCBpbiB0 aGUgbGFzdCBwYXJhZ3JhcGggb2YgU2VjdGlvbiA1LjQgKFJlY292ZXJ5KSwgaXQgc3RhdGVzIGFz IHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6DQoNCuKAnCBBIHBhc3NpdmUgc3RhdGVmdWwgUENFIG1haW50YWlucyB0 aGUgdXBkYXRlZCBTUkxHIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZQ0KICAgZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgTFNQcyBp biBhIGNlbnRyYWxpemVkIG1hbm5lci4gIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgdGhlIFBDQyBjYW4NCiAgIHNwZWNp ZnkgYXMgY29uc3RyYWludHMgdG8gdGhlIHBhdGggY29tcHV0YXRpb24gdGhlIFNSTEcgZGlzam9p bnRuZXNzDQogICBvZiBhIHNldCBvZiBhbHJlYWR5IGVzdGFibGlzaGVkIExTUHMgYnkgb25seSBw cm92aWRpbmcgdGhlIExTUA0KICAgaWRlbnRpZmllcnMu4oCdDQoNCkFsdGhvdWdoIERocnV2LCBD eXJpbCBhbmQgUmFtb24gbWVudGlvbmVkIGRpZmZlcmVudCB1c2FnZSwgYnV0IHRoZSBleHRlbnNp b25zIHJlcXVpcmVkIGFyZSB0aGUgc2FtZSwgcHV0dGluZyBMU1Agb2JqZWN0IGludG8gdGhlIFBD UmVxL1BDUmVwIChOb3RlOiBUaGlzIHdpbGwgYmUgT1BUSU9OQUwpLiBTbyBpdCBhY3R1YWxseSBw cm92ZXMsIGZyb20gZGlmZmVyZW50IGFuZ2xlcywgdGhlIG5lZWQgb2Ygc3VjaCBhbiBleHRlbnNp b25zLiBDeXJpbCBhbmQgRGhydXbigJlzIHVzZSBjYXNlcyBhcmUgcmVjb3Zlcnkvb3B0aW1pemF0 aW9uIHJlbGF0ZWQsIHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIGZhbGwgaW50byB0aGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgYXBwbGljYWJp bGl0eSBkcmFmdCBzaW5jZSB3ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGhhdmUgdGhlc2UgdXNlIGNhc2VzIGFscmVhZHku IEkgd2lsbCB0YWxrIHdpdGggdGhlbSB0byBzZWUgaG93IHdoYXQgdGhleSBoYXZlIGluIG1pbmQg Y2FuIGJlIHJlZmxlY3RlZCBpbiB0aGUgYXBwbGljYWJpbGl0eSBkcmFmdCB0byBleHBsaWNpdGx5 IHN1cHBvcnQgc3VjaCBhIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50LiBBcyBmb3IgUmFtb27igJlzIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24s IGl0IHNlZW1zIHRvIG1lLCBtb3JlIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIGRyaXZlbi4gU28sIEkgYW0gbm90IHN1 cmUgaXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBhcHBsaWNhYmlsaXR5IGRyYWZ0IG9yIGl0 IHNob3VsZCBiZSBtZW50aW9uZWQgaW4gdGhlIGJhc2UgZHJhZnQgKGFzIGEgcmVhc29uIHRvIHN1 cHBvcnQgc3VjaCBleHRlbnNpb25zKT8gIFRob3VnaHRzPw0KDQpBcyBmb3IgSW5h4oCZcyBzdWdn ZXN0aW9uIG9mIG1ha2luZyBhIHNlcGFyYXRlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBJIGFtIG5vdCBzdXJlIGl0IHNo b3VsZCBiZSBkb25lIHRoaXMgd2F5LiBSZWNvdmVyeS9yZS1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb24gaXMgZnVuZGFt ZW50YWwsIHRodXMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGJhc2UgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy4gSWYgeW91 IGFncmVlL2Rpc2FncmVlLCBjYW4gc2hhcmUgeW91ciB0aG91Z2h0cyBwbGVhc2U/DQoNClJlZ2Fy ZHMsDQpYaWFuDQoNCkZyb206IEluYSBNaW5laSBbbWFpbHRvOmluYW1pbmVpQGdvb2dsZS5jb21d DQpTZW50OiAyMDE05bm0M+aciDHml6UgOTowNQ0KVG86IFpoYW5neGlhbiAoWGlhbikNCkNjOiBD eXJpbCBNYXJnYXJpYTsgUmFtb24gQ2FzZWxsYXM7IHBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6 IFtQY2VdIGNvbW1lbnRzIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBjZS0wOC50eHQNCg0KQWxs LA0KDQpUbyBYaWFuJ3MgcXVlc3Rpb24sIGFzIHdlIGV4cGxhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGUgd2cgbWVldGlu ZywgdGhlIExTUCBvYmplY3QgaW4gUENSZXEgYW5kIFBDUmVwIHdhcyByZW1vdmVkIGJlY2F1c2U6 DQphKSB0aGVyZSB3YXMgbm8gZnVydGhlciBtZW50aW9uIGFueXdoZXJlIGluIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVu dCBvbiB0aGUgdXNlIGluIHRob3NlIG1lc3NhZ2VzLCBvciBvZiB0aGUgTFNQIG9iamVjdCBpbiB0 aG9zZSBtZXNzYWdlcywgb3Igb2YgdGhlIHZhbHVlcyBvZiBpdHMgZmllbGRzIChhcyBjYW4gYmUg c2VlbiBmcm9tIHRoaXMgdGhyZWFkLCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcGVvcGxlIHVzZWQgdGhlbSBkaWZmZXJl bnRseSkuDQpiKSBubyB1c2UgY2FzZXMgd2VyZSBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4gdGhlIGFwcGxpY2FiaWxp dHkgZG9jdW1lbnQgZm9yIHRoaXMgdXNlLg0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIHNwZWNpZnlpbmcgdGhlIHVzZSBj YXNlcyBhbmQgdGhlIGFjY29tcGFueWluZyBvcGVyYXRpb24gd291bGQgbWFrZSBmb3IgYSB2ZXJ5 IGdvb2Qgc2VwYXJhdGUgZG9jdW1lbnQuDQoNCkluYQ0KDQoNCg0KT24gVGh1LCBGZWIgMjcsIDIw MTQgYXQgMTA6MzIgUE0sIFpoYW5neGlhbiAoWGlhbikgPHpoYW5nLnhpYW5AaHVhd2VpLmNvbTxt YWlsdG86emhhbmcueGlhbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tPj4gd3JvdGU6DQpIaSwgQWxsLA0KDQogICAgIEkg YWxzbyBzdXBwb3J0IGFkZGluZyB0aGlzIGZ1bmN0aW9uLiBJIHJlbWVtYmVyIHByZXZpb3VzIHZl cnNpb24gb2YgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCAodjYpIGRvZXMgc3VwcG9ydCB0aGlzIChzZWU6IGh0dHA6Ly90 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBjZS0wNiNzZWN0aW9u LTYuNCkuIEl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGdvb2QgdG8gZXhwbGFpbiB3aHkgaXQgaXMgcmVtb3ZlZCBpbiB0 aGUgY3VycmVudCB2ZXJzaW9uIGlmIG5vdCBiZWZvcmUuIEFsc28sIGhvdyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5n IHNjZW5hcmlvcyBtZW50aW9uZWQgYnkgQ3lyaWwsIFJhbW9uICYgRGhydXYgY291bGQgYmUgYWRk cmVzc2VkIGlmIHY4IGlzIHVzZWQuIFRoYXQgd291bGQgaGVscCB0byBzZWUgaWYgdGhpcyBmdW5j dGlvbiBpcyBpbmRlZWQgdXNlZnVsLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KWGlhbg0KDQpGcm9tOiBQY2UgW21h aWx0bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86cGNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+XSBP biBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQ3lyaWwgTWFyZ2FyaWENClNlbnQ6IDIwMTTlubQy5pyIMjfml6UgMTY6NDQN ClRvOiBSYW1vbiBDYXNlbGxhcw0KQ2M6IHBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86cGNlQGlldGYub3Jn Pg0KDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1BjZV0gY29tbWVudHMgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwt cGNlLTA4LnR4dA0KDQpIaQ0KSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIFJhbW9uIGFuZCBEcnV2Lg0KSW4gYWRkaXRp b24gdG8gdGhvc2UgdXNlIGNhc2UsIHRoZSBMU1Agb2JqZWN0IGluIFBDUmVxL1BDUmVwIGlzIGFs c28gYXBwbGljYWJsZSBmb3Igbm9uLWRlbGVnYXRlZCBMU1AgaW4gYW4gYWN0aXZlIHN0YXRlZnVs IFBDRSBjYXNlLg0KT25lIGV4YW1wbGUgY2FuIGJlIHRoZSByZXJvdXRpbmcgYWZ0ZXIgYSBmYWls dXJlLCB0aGlzIG1heSBhZmZlY3QgZGVsZWdhdGVkIGFuZCBub24gZGVsZWdhdGVkIExTUHMsIHRo ZSBTdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0Ugd291bGQgYmUgYmVuZWZpdCBmcm9tIGtub3dpbmcgd2hpY2ggbm9uIGRl bGVnYXRlZCBMU1AgaXMgdG8gYmUgcmVyb3V0ZWQuDQpCUiwNCkN5cmlsLg0KDQpPbiAyNyBGZWJy dWFyeSAyMDE0IDA3OjQwLCBSYW1vbiBDYXNlbGxhcyA8cmFtb24uY2FzZWxsYXNAY3R0Yy5lczxt YWlsdG86cmFtb24uY2FzZWxsYXNAY3R0Yy5lcz4+IHdyb3RlOg0KRWwgMjcvMDIvMjAxNCAzOjQz LCBEaHJ1diBEaG9keSBlc2NyaWJpw7M6DQoNCg0KPiBXaGF0IGlzIG5vdCBhdmFpbGFibGUgdG9k YXkgaXMgdG8gc2VuZCB0aGUgTFNQIG9iamVjdCBpbiB0aGUgUENSZXEsDQpJbmEgc2luY2UgeW91 IGJyaW5nIHRoaXMgdXAsIElNTyBMU1Agb2JqZWN0IGluIFBDUmVxIGZvciBwYXNzaXZlIHN0YXRl ZnVsIFBDRSBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZnVsIGluIGNhc2Ugb2YgcmUtb3B0aW1pemF0aW9uLCBleGNsdXNp b24gZXRjLg0KU29tZSBleHRlbnNpb25zIHRvIFBDRVAgYXJlIG5lZWRlZCB0byBkbyB0aGF0LCBi dXQgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHN0ZXAgd291bGQgYmUgdG8gaWRlbnRpZnkgYW4gTFNQIGluIFBDUmVxIG1l c3NhZ2UuDQoNCkRocnV2LCBJbmEsIGFsbA0KDQpUTCZEUiArMS4gSnVzdCBmd2l3LCBpbiBvbmUg b2Ygb3VyIHVzZSBjYXNlcywgYSAiZnJvbnQtZW5kIiBzdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UgbWF5IGRlbGVnYXRl IGEgY29tcGxleCAoZS5nLiBvcHRpY2FsKSBjb21wdXRhdGlvbi9yZS1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb24vZGVm cmFnbWVudGF0aW9uIHRvIGEgImJhY2stZW5kIiBQQ0UsIGFuZCBib3RoIHRoZSBURUQgYW5kIExT UERCIGFyZSBzaGFyZWQgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgcG9vbCBvZiBQQ0VzLiBJbiBwcmV2aW91cyB2ZXJz aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQsIHdlIHVzZWQgdGhlIExTUCBvYmplY3QgdGhhdCB3YXMgaW5jbHVk ZWQgd2l0aGluIGEgUENFUCByZXF1ZXN0LiBUaGVyZSB3YXMgdGhlIGlzc3VlIGFib3V0IHRoZSBw bHNwaWQsIG91ciBhcHByb2FjaCB3YXMgYmFzZWQgb24gdXNpbmcgYSBkdW1teSBwbHNwaWQgYW5k IHJlZmVyIHRvIHRoZSBMU1AgZW50cnkgaW4gdGhlIGRhdGFiYXNlIGJ5IGl0cyBzeW1ib2xpYyBu YW1lIChwcmltYXJ5IGtleSkuDQoNCkluIHNob3J0LCB3ZSBkaWQgZmluZCBpdCB1c2VmdWwgdG8g YmUgYWJsZSB0byAicmVmZXIiIHRvIGFuIExTUCB3aXRoaW4gdGhlIGRiIHdoZW4gcmVxdWVzdGlu ZyBjb21wdXRhdGlvbnMgYmV0d2VlbiBjb2xsYWJvcmF0aW5nIFBDRXMuIEluZGVlZCwgbXVjaCBs aWtlIERocnV2J3MsIGZvciB0aGlzIHNwZWNpZmljIHVzZSBjYXNlLCB0aGUgYmFja2VuZCBpcyBz dGF0ZWZ1bCBidXQgcGFzc2l2ZS4gVGhlIGFsdGVybmF0aXZlIGlzIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgdGhlIFJS TywgYnV0IHRoZSBkYiBjb250YWlucyBvdGhlciByZWxldmFudCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0aGF0IGNh bm5vdCBiZSBjb252ZXllZCBpbiBhICJyZmM1NDQwIiByZS1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb24NCg0KVGhhbmtz DQpSYW1vbg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f Xw0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpQY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpo dHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0KDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpQ Y2VAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOlBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21h aWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlDQoNCg== --_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B3020D6C3SZXEMA512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTIgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 5a6L5L2TOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMSA2IDAgMyAxIDEgMSAxIDE7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2IDMgMiA0 O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUg MiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5v c2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJc QOWui+S9kyI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxIDYgMCAzIDEgMSAxIDEgMTt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZp bml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXtt YXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OuWui+S9kzt9DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1z dHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxp bmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1w cmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpwdXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9 DQpwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsN CgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNtOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdp bi1sZWZ0OjBjbTsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OuWui+S9kzt9DQpz cGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0KLk1zb0No cERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rp b24xDQoJe3NpemU6NjEyLjBwdCA3OTIuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjo3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0IDcyLjBw dCA5MC4wcHQ7fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48 L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0i ZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1z byA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9 ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+DQo8 L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJaSC1DTiIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1cnBsZSI+DQo8 ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGli cmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5IaSwgSW5hLCBh bmQgYWxsLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFu IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtD YWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4m bmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0i RU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkm cXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsg QXMgZm9yIGIpLCBJIGRvIG5vdCB0aGluayBpdCBpcyBlbnRpcmVseSB0cnVlLiAmbmJzcDtJbiB0 aGUgcmVzdG9yYXRpb24gc2VjdGlvbihTZWN0aW9uIDUuNC4yKSwgSXQgbWVudGlvbnMgdGhlIGV4 aXN0aW5nIG1ldGhvZCBwcm92aWRlZCBieSBSRkM1NTIxDQogYW5kIHRoZSBhZHZhbnRhZ2Ugb2Yg YSBzdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UuIFNvLCB0aGlzIGlzIGEgZ29vZCBleGFtcGxlIG9mIHVzaW5nIFBMU1At SUQgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiBwcm92aWRpbmcgZGV0YWlsZWQgTFNQIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIChzdWNoIGFz IEVSTyBldGMuKSwgZXZlbiB0aG91Z2ggSXQgbWF5IG5vdCBiZSBhcyBvYnZpb3VzIGFzIHlvdSB3 YW50IGl0Lg0KPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNw YW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90 O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpw PiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0idGV4 dC1pbmRlbnQ6NS4yNXB0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41 cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7 O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkFub3RoZXIgcmVsYXRlZCBleGFtcGxlLCBpbiB0aGUgbGFzdCBwYXJh Z3JhcGggb2YgU2VjdGlvbiA1LjQgKFJlY292ZXJ5KSwgaXQgc3RhdGVzIGFzIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dp bmc6PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGli cmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpwPiZuYnNw OzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1V UyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90 OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPuKAnCBBIHBhc3NpdmUgc3Rh dGVmdWwgUENFIG1haW50YWlucyB0aGUgdXBkYXRlZCBTUkxHIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZTxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVO LVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IGVz dGFibGlzaGVkIExTUHMgaW4gYSBjZW50cmFsaXplZCBtYW5uZXIuJm5ic3A7IFRoZXJlZm9yZSwg dGhlIFBDQyBjYW48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPiZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyBzcGVjaWZ5IGFzIGNvbnN0cmFpbnRzIHRvIHRoZSBwYXRoIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9u IHRoZSBTUkxHIGRpc2pvaW50bmVzczxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6 IzFGNDk3RCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IG9mIGEgc2V0IG9mIGFscmVhZHkgZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgTFNQ cyBieSBvbmx5IHByb3ZpZGluZyB0aGUgTFNQPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztj b2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgaWRlbnRpZmllcnMu4oCdPG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJm b250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fu cy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1 b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5BbHRob3VnaCBEaHJ1diwgQ3lyaWwg YW5kIFJhbW9uIG1lbnRpb25lZCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdXNhZ2UsIGJ1dCB0aGUgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBy ZXF1aXJlZCBhcmUgdGhlIHNhbWUsIHB1dHRpbmcgTFNQIG9iamVjdCBpbnRvIHRoZSBQQ1JlcS9Q Q1JlcCAoTm90ZToNCiBUaGlzIHdpbGwgYmUgT1BUSU9OQUwpLiBTbyBpdCBhY3R1YWxseSBwcm92 ZXMsIGZyb20gZGlmZmVyZW50IGFuZ2xlcywgdGhlIG5lZWQgb2Ygc3VjaCBhbiBleHRlbnNpb25z LiBDeXJpbCBhbmQgRGhydXbigJlzIHVzZSBjYXNlcyBhcmUgcmVjb3Zlcnkvb3B0aW1pemF0aW9u IHJlbGF0ZWQsIHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIGZhbGwgaW50byB0aGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgYXBwbGljYWJpbGl0 eSBkcmFmdCBzaW5jZSB3ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGhhdmUgdGhlc2UgdXNlIGNhc2VzDQogYWxyZWFkeS4g SSB3aWxsIHRhbGsgd2l0aCB0aGVtIHRvIHNlZSBob3cgd2hhdCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgaW4gbWluZCBj YW4gYmUgcmVmbGVjdGVkIGluIHRoZSBhcHBsaWNhYmlsaXR5IGRyYWZ0IHRvIGV4cGxpY2l0bHkg c3VwcG9ydCBzdWNoIGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQuIEFzIGZvciBSYW1vbuKAmXMgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiwg aXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUsIG1vcmUgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgZHJpdmVuLiBTbywgSSBhbSBub3Qgc3Vy ZSBpdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgaW5jbHVkZWQNCiBpbiB0aGUgYXBwbGljYWJpbGl0eSBkcmFmdCBvciBp dCBzaG91bGQgYmUgbWVudGlvbmVkIGluIHRoZSBiYXNlIGRyYWZ0IChhcyBhIHJlYXNvbiB0byBz dXBwb3J0IHN1Y2ggZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyk/ICZuYnNwO1Rob3VnaHRzPzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMt c2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6 MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZx dW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5BcyBmb3IgSW5h4oCZcyBzdWdnZXN0aW9uIG9mIG1ha2luZyBh IHNlcGFyYXRlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBJIGFtIG5vdCBzdXJlIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBkb25lIHRoaXMg d2F5LiBSZWNvdmVyeS9yZS1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb24gaXMgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwsIHRodXMNCiBzaG91 bGQgYmUgcGFydCBvZiB0aGUgYmFzZSBleHRlbnNpb25zLiBJZiB5b3UgYWdyZWUvZGlzYWdyZWUs IGNhbiBzaGFyZSB5b3VyIHRob3VnaHRzIHBsZWFzZT88bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1 b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29s b3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+UmVnYXJkcyw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMx RjQ5N0QiPlhpYW48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxv OnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRl ci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZx dW90OyI+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZx dW90OyI+IEluYSBNaW5laSBbbWFpbHRvOmluYW1pbmVpQGdvb2dsZS5jb21dDQo8YnI+DQo8Yj5T ZW50OjwvYj4gMjAxNDwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdCI+5bm0PC9z cGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+Mzwvc3Bhbj48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdCI+5pyIPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1 b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+MTwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBw dCI+5pelPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhvbWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+DQog OTowNTxicj4NCjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gWmhhbmd4aWFuIChYaWFuKTxicj4NCjxiPkNjOjwvYj4gQ3ly aWwgTWFyZ2FyaWE7IFJhbW9uIENhc2VsbGFzOyBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmc8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0 OjwvYj4gUmU6IFtQY2VdIGNvbW1lbnRzIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBjZS0wOC50 eHQ8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxz cGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkFsbCwmbmJzcDsgPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVO LVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+VG8gWGlhbidzIHF1ZXN0aW9uLCBhcyB3 ZSBleHBsYWluZWQgaW4gdGhlIHdnIG1lZXRpbmcsIHRoZSBMU1Agb2JqZWN0IGluIFBDUmVxIGFu ZCBQQ1JlcCB3YXMgcmVtb3ZlZCBiZWNhdXNlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5hKSB0aGVy ZSB3YXMgbm8gZnVydGhlciBtZW50aW9uIGFueXdoZXJlIGluIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBvbiB0aGUg dXNlIGluIHRob3NlIG1lc3NhZ2VzLCBvciBvZiB0aGUgTFNQIG9iamVjdCBpbiB0aG9zZSBtZXNz YWdlcywgb3Igb2YgdGhlIHZhbHVlcyBvZiBpdHMgZmllbGRzIChhcyBjYW4gYmUgc2VlbiBmcm9t IHRoaXMgdGhyZWFkLCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcGVvcGxlIHVzZWQgdGhlbQ0KIGRpZmZlcmVudGx5KS48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+Yikgbm8gdXNlIGNhc2VzIHdlcmUgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIHRo ZSBhcHBsaWNhYmlsaXR5IGRvY3VtZW50IGZvciB0aGlzIHVzZS4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5n PSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkkgdGhpbmsgc3BlY2lmeWluZyB0 aGUgdXNlIGNhc2VzIGFuZCB0aGUgYWNjb21wYW55aW5nIG9wZXJhdGlvbiB3b3VsZCBtYWtlIGZv ciBhIHZlcnkgZ29vZCBzZXBhcmF0ZSBkb2N1bWVudC4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1V UyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkluYSZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVO LVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0i bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4t VVMiPk9uIFRodSwgRmViIDI3LCAyMDE0IGF0IDEwOjMyIFBNLCBaaGFuZ3hpYW4gKFhpYW4pICZs dDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86emhhbmcueGlhbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+ emhhbmcueGlhbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tPC9hPiZndDsgd3JvdGU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10 b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT IiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7 LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+SGksIEFsbCwNCjwvc3Bhbj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFs dDphdXRvIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMx RjQ5N0QiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRv O21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5z LXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyBJIGFs c28gc3VwcG9ydCBhZGRpbmcgdGhpcyBmdW5jdGlvbi4gSSByZW1lbWJlciBwcmV2aW91cyB2ZXJz aW9uIG9mIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQNCiAodjYpIGRvZXMgc3VwcG9ydCB0aGlzIChzZWU6IDxhIGhyZWY9 Imh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBjZS0w NiNzZWN0aW9uLTYuNCIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPg0KaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0 bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlLTA2I3NlY3Rpb24tNi40PC9hPikuIEl0IHdv dWxkIGJlIGdvb2QgdG8gZXhwbGFpbiB3aHkgaXQgaXMgcmVtb3ZlZCBpbiB0aGUgY3VycmVudCB2 ZXJzaW9uIGlmIG5vdCBiZWZvcmUuIEFsc28sIGhvdyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHNjZW5hcmlvcyBt ZW50aW9uZWQgYnkgQ3lyaWwsIFJhbW9uICZhbXA7IERocnV2IGNvdWxkIGJlIGFkZHJlc3NlZCBp ZiB2OCBpcyB1c2VkLg0KIFRoYXQgd291bGQgaGVscCB0byBzZWUgaWYgdGhpcyBmdW5jdGlvbiBp cyBpbmRlZWQgdXNlZnVsLiAmbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRv cC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDss JnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi IHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0 byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdE Ij5SZWdhcmRzLDwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21z by1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNl cmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPlhpYW48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFy Z2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0i RU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkm cXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+ PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJv cmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBj bSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1h bHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+PGI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1RhaG9tYSZxdW90Oywm cXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1RhaG9tYSZxdW90Oywm cXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij4gUGNlDQogW21haWx0bzo8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86cGNl LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmciIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5wY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZzwv YT5dDQo8Yj5PbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgPC9iPkN5cmlsIE1hcmdhcmlhPGJyPg0KPGI+U2VudDo8L2I+ IDIwMTQ8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPuW5tDwvc3Bhbj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7 VGFob21hJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPjI8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPuaciDwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VGFob21hJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMt c2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPjI3PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0Ij7ml6U8 L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O1RhaG9tYSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7Ij4NCiAxNjo0NDxi cj4NCjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gUmFtb24gQ2FzZWxsYXM8YnI+DQo8Yj5DYzo8L2I+IDxhIGhyZWY9Im1h aWx0bzpwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmciIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5wY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+PC9zcGFu PjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBS ZTogW1BjZV0gY29tbWVudHMgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlLTA4LnR4dDxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBz dHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8i PjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3At YWx0OmF1dG87bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5IaQ0KPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1h bHQ6YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBSYW1vbiBhbmQgRHJ1di48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0 OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5JbiBh ZGRpdGlvbiB0byB0aG9zZSB1c2UgY2FzZSwgdGhlIExTUCBvYmplY3QgaW4gUENSZXEvUENSZXAg aXMgYWxzbyBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIGZvciBub24tZGVsZWdhdGVkIExTUCBpbiBhbiBhY3RpdmUgc3Rh dGVmdWwgUENFIGNhc2UuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21hcmdpbi1i b3R0b206MTIuMHB0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+T25lIGV4YW1wbGUgY2FuIGJlIHRoZSBy ZXJvdXRpbmcgYWZ0ZXIgYSBmYWlsdXJlLCB0aGlzIG1heSBhZmZlY3QgZGVsZWdhdGVkIGFuZCBu b24gZGVsZWdhdGVkIExTUHMsIHRoZSBTdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0Ugd291bGQgYmUgYmVuZWZpdCBmcm9t IGtub3dpbmcgd2hpY2ggbm9uIGRlbGVnYXRlZA0KIExTUCBpcyB0byBiZSByZXJvdXRlZC48bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBz dHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8i PjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5CUiwNCjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0 bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkN5cmlsLjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4t dG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+Jm5i c3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0 eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+ PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPk9uIDI3IEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDIwMTQgMDc6NDAsIFJhbW9uIENhc2Vs bGFzICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86cmFtb24uY2FzZWxsYXNAY3R0Yy5lcyIgdGFyZ2V0PSJf YmxhbmsiPnJhbW9uLmNhc2VsbGFzQGN0dGMuZXM8L2E+Jmd0OyB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28t bWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiPkVsIDI3LzAyLzIwMTQgMzo0MywgRGhydXYgRGhvZHkgZXNjcmliacOzOjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJn aW4tdG9wOjUuMHB0O21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206NS4wcHQiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1h bHQ6YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1 dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj4mbmJzcDs8 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs IiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1 dG8iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT IiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjguMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LCZx dW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPldoYXQgaXMgbm90IGF2YWlsYWJsZSB0b2RheSBpcyB0byBz ZW5kIHRoZSBMU1Agb2JqZWN0IGluIHRoZSBQQ1JlcSw8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6 YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkluYSBzaW5jZSB5b3UgYnJpbmcgdGhpcyB1cCwgSU1P IExTUCBvYmplY3QgaW4gUENSZXEgZm9yIHBhc3NpdmUgc3RhdGVmdWwgUENFIGNhbiBiZSB1c2Vm dWwgaW4gY2FzZSBvZiByZS1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb24sIGV4Y2x1c2lvbiBldGMuJm5ic3A7PG86cD48 L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5 bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+U29tZSBleHRlbnNpb25zIHRvIFBDRVAgYXJlIG5lZWRlZCB0byBk byB0aGF0LCBidXQgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHN0ZXAgd291bGQgYmUgdG8gaWRlbnRpZnkgYW4gTFNQIGlu IFBDUmVxIG1lc3NhZ2UuJm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2lu LXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4t VVMiPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFs dDphdXRvIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+RGhydXYsIEluYSwgYWxsPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KVEwm YW1wO0RSICYjNDM7MS4gSnVzdCBmd2l3LCBpbiBvbmUgb2Ygb3VyIHVzZSBjYXNlcywgYSAmcXVv dDtmcm9udC1lbmQmcXVvdDsgc3RhdGVmdWwgUENFIG1heSBkZWxlZ2F0ZSBhIGNvbXBsZXggKGUu Zy4gb3B0aWNhbCkgY29tcHV0YXRpb24vcmUtb3B0aW1pemF0aW9uL2RlZnJhZ21lbnRhdGlvbiB0 byBhICZxdW90O2JhY2stZW5kJnF1b3Q7IFBDRSwgYW5kIGJvdGggdGhlIFRFRCBhbmQgTFNQREIg YXJlIHNoYXJlZCBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBwb29sIG9mIFBDRXMuIEluIHByZXZpb3VzIHZlcnNpb25z DQogb2YgdGhlIGRyYWZ0LCB3ZSB1c2VkIHRoZSBMU1Agb2JqZWN0IHRoYXQgd2FzIGluY2x1ZGVk IHdpdGhpbiBhIFBDRVAgcmVxdWVzdC4gVGhlcmUgd2FzIHRoZSBpc3N1ZSBhYm91dCB0aGUgcGxz cGlkLCBvdXIgYXBwcm9hY2ggd2FzIGJhc2VkIG9uIHVzaW5nIGEgZHVtbXkgcGxzcGlkIGFuZCBy ZWZlciB0byB0aGUgTFNQIGVudHJ5IGluIHRoZSBkYXRhYmFzZSBieSBpdHMgc3ltYm9saWMgbmFt ZSAocHJpbWFyeSBrZXkpLg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KSW4gc2hvcnQsIHdlIGRpZCBmaW5kIGl0IHVz ZWZ1bCB0byBiZSBhYmxlIHRvICZxdW90O3JlZmVyJnF1b3Q7IHRvIGFuIExTUCB3aXRoaW4gdGhl IGRiIHdoZW4gcmVxdWVzdGluZyBjb21wdXRhdGlvbnMgYmV0d2VlbiBjb2xsYWJvcmF0aW5nIFBD RXMuIEluZGVlZCwgbXVjaCBsaWtlIERocnV2J3MsIGZvciB0aGlzIHNwZWNpZmljIHVzZSBjYXNl LCB0aGUgYmFja2VuZCBpcyBzdGF0ZWZ1bCBidXQgcGFzc2l2ZS4gVGhlIGFsdGVybmF0aXZlIGlz IHRvIHByb3ZpZGUNCiB0aGUgUlJPLCBidXQgdGhlIGRiIGNvbnRhaW5zIG90aGVyIHJlbGV2YW50 IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRoYXQgY2Fubm90IGJlIGNvbnZleWVkIGluIGEgJnF1b3Q7cmZjNTQ0MCZx dW90OyByZS1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb248YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpUaGFua3M8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6 Izg4ODg4OCI+PGJyPg0KUmFtb248L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bWFy Z2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48YnI+DQpfX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXzxicj4NClBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Q8 YnI+DQo8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86UGNlQGlldGYub3JnIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+UGNlQGll dGYub3JnPC9hPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vcGNlIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9s aXN0aW5mby9wY2U8L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b20tYWx0OmF1dG8iPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+ PGJyPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188YnI+ DQpQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0PGJyPg0KPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOlBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZyI+UGNl QGlldGYub3JnPC9hPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4v bGlzdGluZm8vcGNlIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1h bi9saXN0aW5mby9wY2U8L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B3020D6C3SZXEMA512MBSchi_-- From nobody Sun Mar 2 23:21:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340921A0D60; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:21:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mjclKJ5QHwTX; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2560A1A0BFB; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:21:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140303072123.9493.99512.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:21:23 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/f-zouSJtFr0Ma39kWyiiHJOZ0pI Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:21:26 -0000 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 : Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP). Authors : Dhruv Dhody Vishwas Manral Zafar Ali George Swallow Kenji Kumaki Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2014-03-02 Abstract: In certain networks like financial information network (stock/ commodity trading) and enterprises using cloud based applications, Latency (delay), Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet Loss is becoming a key requirement for path computation along with other constraints and metrics. Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Loss is associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers and service providers. [OSPF-TE-EXPRESS] and [ISIS-TE-EXPRESS] describes mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and ISIS respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. This document describes the extension to PCEP to carry Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Loss as constraints for end to end path computation. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sun Mar 2 23:38:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAFB1A0D66 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:54 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rhinj2mXDgli for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6101A0BF8 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so3880429iec.1 for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:38:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Vo1Qk7GlvH8ugFTIphW36exUhsZVu6bOP9kET7lqazY=; b=YlwDdqGdYKX77IrgY62zONQ52yvUoUMDZBxlhcxEgS8TDjfm9OODyVYUG+eCKdZ/5w jl+oVIwqIqwNmKjwU71qAxHiXs59iEe3G+jifgegLyzcQSntgNbRqoXETjWT+rL0FTKj RFjuYy0AElxFCFHP86rz0iNjLwQtInfNR4cyN93RP1/2yz1/I+9HAi0qMqGw9XI6LW9G 0dEJTOuqMvN2Lvw6LZneD3owKn5hPM9inholP6pvOzCY1fO7ZSv9hSEiF49Ol4V9QzuF DSiTHwVXBfWxrEA0n5tbfSLocXdpuC8PkilX9PcUXJr18Uzny7C0Nfv41eBWGQlP71uM HjUg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.229.201 with SMTP id jj9mr24194228icb.11.1393832328825; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.112.103 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140303072123.9493.99512.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140303072123.9493.99512.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:38:48 +0000 Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3ab8ed614b304f3aee00b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/IignuKxjyB-rknqpyDiH2XHeJ7M Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:38:54 -0000 --001a11c3ab8ed614b304f3aee00b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi WG, We have made an update to the WG document, main changes - - reference to RFC6049 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6049] - clarification for jitter (latency-variation) and packet-loss metrics for the path Would like to thank the Performance Metric directorate for their review and help with text. Request WG to talk to the authors if you have any suggestions/comments etc. Regards, Dhruv On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:21 AM, wrote: > > 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 : Extensions to the Path Computation Element > Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path > (LSP). > Authors : Dhruv Dhody > Vishwas Manral > Zafar Ali > George Swallow > Kenji Kumaki > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2014-03-02 > > Abstract: > In certain networks like financial information network (stock/ > commodity trading) and enterprises using cloud based applications, > Latency (delay), Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet Loss is > becoming a key requirement for path computation along with other > constraints and metrics. Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Loss > is associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between > customers and service providers. > > [OSPF-TE-EXPRESS] and [ISIS-TE-EXPRESS] describes mechanisms with > which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and > ISIS respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication > Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements > (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation > Clients (PCCs) requests. This document describes the extension to > PCEP to carry Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Loss as > constraints for end to end path computation. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-04 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --001a11c3ab8ed614b304f3aee00b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi WG,

We have made an update to the WG document, main changes -
- = reference to RFC6049 [http:/= /tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6049]
- clarification for jitter (latency-variation) and packet-loss metr= ics for the path

Would like to thank the Performance Metric directorate fo= r their review and help with text.=A0

Request WG to talk to the authors if you have any suggest= ions/comments etc.=A0

Regards,
Dhruv


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:21 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies.
=A0This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group = of the IETF.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Extensions to the Path Computat= ion Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Sw= itched Path (LSP).
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Authors =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Dhruv Dhody
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Vishwas Manral
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Zafar Ali
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 George Swallow
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Kenji Kumaki
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware= -04.txt
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 18
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2014-03-02

Abstract:
=A0 =A0In certain networks like financial information network (stock/
=A0 =A0commodity trading) and enterprises using cloud based applications, =A0 =A0Latency (delay), Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet Loss is
=A0 =A0becoming a key requirement for path computation along with other
=A0 =A0constraints and metrics. =A0Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Lo= ss
=A0 =A0is associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between
=A0 =A0customers and service providers.

=A0 =A0[OSPF-TE-EXPRESS] and [ISIS-TE-EXPRESS] describes mechanisms with =A0 =A0which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and =A0 =A0ISIS respectively. =A0The Path Computation Element Communication
=A0 =A0Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements =A0 =A0(PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation<= br> =A0 =A0Clients (PCCs) requests. =A0This document describes the extension to=
=A0 =A0PCEP to carry Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Loss as
=A0 =A0constraints for end to end path computation.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep= -service-aware/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-a= ware-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pc= e-pcep-service-aware-04


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

--001a11c3ab8ed614b304f3aee00b-- From nobody Mon Mar 3 00:42:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1053B1A0AC4 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 00:41:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fhJG3EAggFRL for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 00:41:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879391A0950 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 00:41:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p61so1586621wes.41 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:41:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Eg8QryXJ8XLeiDibOHqOKWpFS70pc9VSvhOVBkFYStE=; b=GF13DQsIy/yyAH3T2JHRKsfn07JJDGquJWmJBYonHZ+N4lWxcZ9yQqQWALKwMu0DCS 4JaDLHwSM8zfXP+30umwzxYqfHySyraoe1HnLecWy0KoERzBcAY0OR1oNl3BW/984RTY 0u6KPAbTV6BgBrsEeadgWUQKGzhWvH9aFW4PVzhlP8ADTpEb4fQURx14oXVI21qxtD0i NxI/ogYj7GwLJUFLMz34+HZNUiC03N/T2QqqDkInaEE84KF4VbD5xPEsuQpA5OCJ+xZP eMoDrbaLSxTWL6nstVUfla0r3zgOiiPJRYFrEl4KrwOQqtirGuRR/IefFmnTDlqirAZ8 kGgg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.60.16 with SMTP id d16mr15213097wjr.46.1393836110215; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:41:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.61.12 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 00:41:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75543CA4@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <530EDDC0.8000206@cttc.es> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:41:50 +0100 Message-ID: From: Cyril Margaria To: "Zhangxian (Xian)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86ccbc39829e04f3afc2d5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/j1DECd2zwvFpQjN6KsOIhpTmj64 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 08:41:57 -0000 --047d7b86ccbc39829e04f3afc2d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I agree with Xian the applicability consider those use case and the passive statefull in general. In order to support the passive stateful use case it seems to be a bit overkill to create a separate document to revert an optional object from 2 revision ago. Best Regards. On 3 March 2014 03:21, Zhangxian (Xian) wrote: > Hi, Ina, and all, > > > > As for b), I do not think it is entirely true. In the restoration > section(Section 5.4.2), It mentions the existing method provided by RFC55= 21 > and the advantage of a stateful PCE. So, this is a good example of using > PLSP-ID instead of providing detailed LSP information (such as ERO etc.), > even though It may not be as obvious as you want it. > > > > Another related example, in the last paragraph of Section 5.4 (Recovery), > it states as the following: > > > > =E2=80=9C A passive stateful PCE maintains the updated SRLG information o= f the > > established LSPs in a centralized manner. Therefore, the PCC can > > specify as constraints to the path computation the SRLG disjointness > > of a set of already established LSPs by only providing the LSP > > identifiers.=E2=80=9D > > > > Although Dhruv, Cyril and Ramon mentioned different usage, but the > extensions required are the same, putting LSP object into the PCReq/PCRep > (Note: This will be OPTIONAL). So it actually proves, from different > angles, the need of such an extensions. Cyril and Dhruv=E2=80=99s use cas= es are > recovery/optimization related, they should fall into the scope of > applicability draft since we already have these use cases already. I will > talk with them to see how what they have in mind can be reflected in the > applicability draft to explicitly support such a requirement. As for > Ramon=E2=80=99s suggestion, it seems to me, more operational driven. So, = I am not > sure it should be included in the applicability draft or it should be > mentioned in the base draft (as a reason to support such extensions)? > Thoughts? > > > > As for Ina=E2=80=99s suggestion of making a separate document, I am not s= ure it > should be done this way. Recovery/re-optimization is fundamental, thus > should be part of the base extensions. If you agree/disagree, can share > your thoughts please? > > > > Regards, > > Xian > > > > *From:* Ina Minei [mailto:inaminei@google.com] > *Sent:* 2014=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=881=E6=97=A5 9:05 > *To:* Zhangxian (Xian) > *Cc:* Cyril Margaria; Ramon Casellas; pce@ietf.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt > > > > All, > > > > To Xian's question, as we explained in the wg meeting, the LSP object in > PCReq and PCRep was removed because: > > a) there was no further mention anywhere in the document on the use in > those messages, or of the LSP object in those messages, or of the values = of > its fields (as can be seen from this thread, different people used them > differently). > > b) no use cases were specified in the applicability document for this use= . > > > > I think specifying the use cases and the accompanying operation would mak= e > for a very good separate document. > > > > Ina > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Zhangxian (Xian) > wrote: > > Hi, All, > > > > I also support adding this function. I remember previous version of > this draft (v6) does support this (see: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-06#section-6.4). > It would be good to explain why it is removed in the current version if n= ot > before. Also, how the following scenarios mentioned by Cyril, Ramon & Dhr= uv > could be addressed if v8 is used. That would help to see if this function > is indeed useful. > > > > Regards, > > Xian > > > > *From:* Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Cyril Margaria > *Sent:* 2014=E5=B9=B42=E6=9C=8827=E6=97=A5 16:44 > *To:* Ramon Casellas > *Cc:* pce@ietf.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt > > > > Hi > > I agree with Ramon and Druv. > > In addition to those use case, the LSP object in PCReq/PCRep is also > applicable for non-delegated LSP in an active stateful PCE case. > > One example can be the rerouting after a failure, this may affect > delegated and non delegated LSPs, the Stateful PCE would be benefit from > knowing which non delegated LSP is to be rerouted. > > BR, > > Cyril. > > > > On 27 February 2014 07:40, Ramon Casellas wrote: > > El 27/02/2014 3:43, Dhruv Dhody escribi=C3=B3: > > > > > > > What is not available today is to send the LSP object in the PCReq, > > Ina since you bring this up, IMO LSP object in PCReq for passive stateful > PCE can be useful in case of re-optimization, exclusion etc. > > Some extensions to PCEP are needed to do that, but the first step would b= e > to identify an LSP in PCReq message. > > > > Dhruv, Ina, all > > TL&DR +1. Just fwiw, in one of our use cases, a "front-end" stateful PCE > may delegate a complex (e.g. optical) > computation/re-optimization/defragmentation to a "back-end" PCE, and both > the TED and LSPDB are shared between the pool of PCEs. In previous versio= ns > of the draft, we used the LSP object that was included within a PCEP > request. There was the issue about the plspid, our approach was based on > using a dummy plspid and refer to the LSP entry in the database by its > symbolic name (primary key). > > In short, we did find it useful to be able to "refer" to an LSP within th= e > db when requesting computations between collaborating PCEs. Indeed, much > like Dhruv's, for this specific use case, the backend is stateful but > passive. The alternative is to provide the RRO, but the db contains other > relevant information that cannot be conveyed in a "rfc5440" re-optimizati= on > > Thanks > Ramon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > --047d7b86ccbc39829e04f3afc2d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,


I agree with Xian the= =C2=A0 applicability consider those use case and the passive statefull in g= eneral.
In order to support the passive stateful use case it seems= to be a bit overkill to create a separate document to revert an optional o= bject from 2 revision ago.

Best Regards.





On 3 March= 2014 03:21, Zhangxian (Xian) <zhang.xian@huawei.com> wr= ote:

Hi, Ina, a= nd all,

=C2= =A0

=C2=A0=C2= =A0 As for b), I do not think it is entirely true. =C2=A0In the restoration= section(Section 5.4.2), It mentions the existing method provided by RFC552= 1 and the advantage of a stateful PCE. So, this is a good example of using P= LSP-ID instead of providing detailed LSP information (such as ERO etc.), ev= en though It may not be as obvious as you want it.

=C2= =A0

Another related example, in the last paragraph of Sectio= n 5.4 (Recovery), it states as the following:

=C2= =A0

=E2=80=9C = A passive stateful PCE maintains the updated SRLG information of the=

=C2=A0=C2= =A0 established LSPs in a centralized manner.=C2=A0 Therefore, the PCC can<= u>

=C2=A0=C2= =A0 specify as constraints to the path computation the SRLG disjointness=

=C2=A0=C2= =A0 of a set of already established LSPs by only providing the LSP

=C2=A0=C2= =A0 identifiers.=E2=80=9D

=C2=A0=C2= =A0 =C2=A0

Although D= hruv, Cyril and Ramon mentioned different usage, but the extensions require= d are the same, putting LSP object into the PCReq/PCRep (Note: This will be OPTIONAL). So it actually proves, from different angles, the = need of such an extensions. Cyril and Dhruv=E2=80=99s use cases are recover= y/optimization related, they should fall into the scope of applicability dr= aft since we already have these use cases already. I will talk with them to see how what they have in mind can be re= flected in the applicability draft to explicitly support such a requirement= . As for Ramon=E2=80=99s suggestion, it seems to me, more operational drive= n. So, I am not sure it should be included in the applicability draft or it should be mentioned in the base draft (as= a reason to support such extensions)? =C2=A0Thoughts?=

=C2= =A0

As for Ina= =E2=80=99s suggestion of making a separate document, I am not sure it shoul= d be done this way. Recovery/re-optimization is fundamental, thus should be part of the base extensions. If you agree/disagree, can share yo= ur thoughts please?

=C2= =A0

Regards,

Xian

=C2= =A0

From: Ina Minei [mailto:inaminei@google.com]
Sent: 2014=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=88= 1= =E6=97=A5 9:05
To: Zhangxian (Xian)
Cc: Cyril Margaria; Ramon Casellas; pce@ietf.org


Subject: Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt

=C2=A0

All,=C2=A0

=C2=A0

To Xian's question, as we e= xplained in the wg meeting, the LSP object in PCReq and PCRep was removed b= ecause:

a) there was no further mention= anywhere in the document on the use in those messages, or of the LSP objec= t in those messages, or of the values of its fields (as can be seen from th= is thread, different people used them differently).

b) no use cases were specified = in the applicability document for this use.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

I think specifying the use case= s and the accompanying operation would make for a very good separate docume= nt.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Ina=C2=A0<= /p>

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

= =C2=A0

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:32 P= M, Zhangxian (Xian) <zhang.xian@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi, All,

=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 I also support adding this function. I remember previous ve= rsion of this draft (v6) does support this (see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-06#section-6.4).= It would be good to explain why it is removed in the current version if no= t before. Also, how the following scenarios mentioned by Cyril, Ramon &= Dhruv could be addressed if v8 is used. That would help to see if this function is indeed useful. =C2=A0

=C2=A0

Regards,

Xian

=C2=A0

From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun= ces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cyril Margaria
Sent: 2014=E5=B9=B42=E6=9C=88= 27=E6=97=A5 16:44
To: Ramon Casellas
Cc: pce@ietf.org


Subject: Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt

=C2=A0

= Hi

I agree with Ramon and Druv.=

In addition to those use case, = the LSP object in PCReq/PCRep is also applicable for non-delegated LSP in a= n active stateful PCE case.

= One example can be the rerouting after a failure, this may affect delegated= and non delegated LSPs, the Stateful PCE would be benefit from knowing whi= ch non delegated LSP is to be rerouted.

BR,

Cyril.

= =C2=A0

On 27 February 2014 07:40, Ramo= n Casellas <= ramon.casellas@cttc.es> wrote:

El 27/02/2014 3:43, Dhruv Dhody= escribi=C3=B3:

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

>=C2=A0What is not available today is to send the LSP object in the PCR= eq,

Ina since you bring this up, IM= O LSP object in PCReq for passive stateful PCE can be useful in case of re-= optimization, exclusion etc.=C2=A0

Some extensions to PCEP are nee= ded to do that, but the first step would be to identify an LSP in PCReq mes= sage.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Dhruv, Ina, all

TL&DR +1. Just fwiw, in one of our use cases, a "front-end" s= tateful PCE may delegate a complex (e.g. optical) computation/re-optimizati= on/defragmentation to a "back-end" PCE, and both the TED and LSPD= B are shared between the pool of PCEs. In previous versions of the draft, we used the LSP object that was included within a PCEP reque= st. There was the issue about the plspid, our approach was based on using a= dummy plspid and refer to the LSP entry in the database by its symbolic na= me (primary key).

In short, we did find it useful to be able to "refer" to an LSP w= ithin the db when requesting computations between collaborating PCEs. Indee= d, much like Dhruv's, for this specific use case, the backend is statef= ul but passive. The alternative is to provide the RRO, but the db contains other relevant information that cannot be con= veyed in a "rfc5440" re-optimization

Thanks
Ramon

=
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

=C2=A0

=
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

=C2=A0


--047d7b86ccbc39829e04f3afc2d5-- From nobody Mon Mar 3 06:00:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4851A0114 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:00:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtOtg_4FXpy1 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D481A00C3 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F28E5D8876 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:00:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167D85D8875 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:00:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:00:27 +0100 Received: from [10.193.116.62] ([10.193.116.62]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:00:26 +0100 Message-ID: <53148AF8.8030709@orange.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:00:24 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" References: <20140302180143.31340.22881.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140302180143.31340.22881.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20140302180143.31340.22881.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2014 14:00:26.0606 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDBEF0E0:01CF36E8] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/k25QubCPg9LaS_FDFLmNPfnuUmM Subject: [Pce] Fwd: Writable MIB Module IESG Statement X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:00:33 -0000 Hi all. FYI. This has been discussed within PCE, it is even better to have an IETF-wide orientation. We will consider this after publishing the MIBs already in the oven. Julien -------- Message original -------- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 10:01:43 -0800 From: The IESG The IESG is aware of discussions in the OPS area and in a number of working groups about the current practice for standards-based approaches to configuration. The OPS area has shown strong support for the use of NETCONF/YANG while many working groups continue to specify MIB modules for this purpose. The IESG wishes to clarify this situation with this statement: - IETF working groups are therefore encouraged to use the NETCONF/YANG standards for configuration, especially in new charters. - SNMP MIB modules creating and modifying configuration state should only be produced by working groups in cases of clear utility and consensus to use SNMP write operations for configuration, and in consultation with the OPS ADs/MIB doctors. From nobody Mon Mar 3 06:14:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71551A0112 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:14:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.959 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LchNffoAm5YA for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38A41A00DF for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:14:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBR78983; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:14:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:13:47 +0000 Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:14:12 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.85]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 22:14:06 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-05.txt Thread-Index: AQHPNrv1FAF73SaCT0eTB5nUiFAniprPZu6g Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:14:06 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.87.0] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Jx6htpmzKRFWWOU77-99JyZo-3U Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-05.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:14:30 -0000 SGksIFdHOg0KSGVyZSBpcyBhIG1pbm9yIHVwZGF0ZSB0byBkcmFmdC13dS1wY2UtZG5zLWRpc2Nv dmVyeS4gDQpodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC13dS1wY2UtZG5zLXBjZS1k aXNjb3ZlcnktMDUNCg0KVGhlcmUgYXJlIG5vIHRlY2huaWNhbCBjaGFuZ2VzIGluIHRoaXMgdmVy c2lvbi4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcyENCi1RaW4NCi0tLS0t08q8/tStvP4tLS0tLQ0Kt6K8/sjLOiBJLUQt QW5ub3VuY2UgW21haWx0bzppLWQtYW5ub3VuY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBpbnRl cm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoz1MIzyNUgMTY6MzgNCsrVvP7I yzogaS1kLWFubm91bmNlQGlldGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBJLUQgQWN0aW9uOiBkcmFmdC13dS1wY2Ut ZG5zLXBjZS1kaXNjb3ZlcnktMDUudHh0DQoNCg0KQSBOZXcgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgaXMgYXZh aWxhYmxlIGZyb20gdGhlIG9uLWxpbmUgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGRpcmVjdG9yaWVzLg0KDQoN CiAgICAgICAgVGl0bGUgICAgICAgICAgIDogUGF0aCBDb21wdXRhdGlvbiBFbGVtZW50IChQQ0Up IERpc2NvdmVyeSB1c2luZyBEb21haW4gTmFtZSBTeXN0ZW0oRE5TKQ0KICAgICAgICBBdXRob3Jz ICAgICAgICAgOiBRaW4gV3UNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRGhydXYgRGhvZHkN CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRGFuaWVsIEtpbmcNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgRGllZ28gUi4gTG9wZXoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgSmVmZiBU YW50c3VyYQ0KCUZpbGVuYW1lICAgICAgICA6IGRyYWZ0LXd1LXBjZS1kbnMtcGNlLWRpc2NvdmVy eS0wNS50eHQNCglQYWdlcyAgICAgICAgICAgOiAyMw0KCURhdGUgICAgICAgICAgICA6IDIwMTQt MDMtMDMNCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBEaXNjb3Zlcnkgb2YgdGhlIFBhdGggQ29tcHV0YXRpb24g RWxlbWVudCAoUENFKSB3aXRoaW4gYW4gSUdQIGFyZWEgb3INCiAgIHJvdXRpbmcgZG9tYWluIGlz IHBvc3NpYmxlIHVzaW5nIE9TUEYgW1JGQzUwODhdIGFuZCBJUy1JUyBbUkZDNTA4OV0uDQogICBI b3dldmVyLCBpdCBoYXMgYmVlbiBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCB0aGF0IGluIGNlcnRhaW4gZGVwbG95bWVu dCBzY2VuYXJpb3MNCiAgIFBDRXMgbWF5IG5vdCB3aXNoLCBvciBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIHBhcnRpY2lw YXRlIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgSUdQIHByb2Nlc3MuDQogICBJbiB0aG9zZSBzY2VuYXJpb3MsIGl0IGlz IGJlbmVmaWNpYWwgZm9yIHRoZSBQYXRoIENvbXB1dGF0aW9uIENsaWVudA0KICAgKFBDQykgKG9y IG90aGVyIFBDRSkgdG8gZGlzY292ZXIgUENFcyB2aWEgYW4gYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmUgbWVjaGFuaXNt IHRvDQogICB0aG9zZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBpbiBbUkZDNTA4OF0gYW5kIFtSRkM1MDg5XS4NCg0KICAg VGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzcGVjaWZpZXMgdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cywgdXNlIGNhc2VzLCBwcm9j ZWR1cmVzIGFuZA0KICAgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB0byBzdXBwb3J0IFBDRSB0eXBlIGFuZCBjYXBhYmls aXR5IGRpc2NvdmVyeSB2aWEgRE5TLg0KDQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIGRhdGF0cmFja2VyIHN0YXR1cyBw YWdlIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzOg0KaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2Mv ZHJhZnQtd3UtcGNlLWRucy1wY2UtZGlzY292ZXJ5Lw0KDQpUaGVyZSdzIGFsc28gYSBodG1saXpl ZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdDoNCmh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0 LXd1LXBjZS1kbnMtcGNlLWRpc2NvdmVyeS0wNQ0KDQpBIGRpZmYgZnJvbSB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMg dmVyc2lvbiBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQ6DQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJs Mj1kcmFmdC13dS1wY2UtZG5zLXBjZS1kaXNjb3ZlcnktMDUNCg0KDQpQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0 IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBzdWJtaXNz aW9uIHVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQg dG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQoNCkludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cyBhcmUgYWxzbyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYnkg YW5vbnltb3VzIEZUUCBhdDoNCmZ0cDovL2Z0cC5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvDQoN Cl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpJLUQtQW5u b3VuY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpJLUQtQW5ub3VuY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaS1kLWFubm91bmNlDQpJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCBkaXJl Y3RvcmllczogaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9zaGFkb3cuaHRtbCBvciBmdHA6Ly9mdHAuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvaWV0Zi8xc2hhZG93LXNpdGVzLnR4dA0K From nobody Mon Mar 3 23:08:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4AA1A0377 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 23:08:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxcjM9D1vQaW for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 23:07:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210BE1A01AE for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 23:07:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10910; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393916874; x=1395126474; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:mime-version; bh=6YQRpyjGX4zbtgvKqdCOQ6sjH9pyyTDKKKvM8586ePc=; b=XcgIr63cmmAO3G+quEthzcvINYU28TerGXo96eEbMJRWg8opmgJMG0sL AhujltVGmOwTkZtzR5r18h+6PGvbW1o7XzGmvzggCL0SUgAO9OfL+ozdt NrJp266m8lSTxtOP7RbDl3HbhG2sOaMBg0W7eROj9bn7arrMli3AT6q5i 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqQFAGV6FVOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagwY7UQbAbIEZFnSCJQEBAQQBAQEaURcEAgEZAQIBAQEoBycLFAMEAggCBBMJh3AIBcwgF443ERcHgih2gRQEmDyBMpB5gy2CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,583,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="24717791" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2014 07:07:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2477r2J014384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:07:53 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.33]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:07:53 -0600 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Last chance for PCE review of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture Thread-Index: AQHPN3h0uPb6qASKs0iiVI02NiBvTA== Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:07:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <08fc01cf28b4$1bb980c0$532c8240$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.108.34] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A8B603DC35804C22BE3325B856FFBBCBciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/o8q9WaV6baZzLmxLOKn0NL85Mx0 Subject: [Pce] Fwd: Last chance for PCE review of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 07:08:00 -0000 --_000_A8B603DC35804C22BE3325B856FFBBCBciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear WG, Please provide your comments if any as soon as possible. Thanks. JP and Julien. Begin forwarded message: From: Adrian Farrel > Subject: [Pce] Last chance for PCE review of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-arch= itecture Date: February 13, 2014 at 12:07:01 PM GMT To: > Cc: > Reply-To: > Hi PCE, Dan and I think that this draft is almost ready to be published as an RFC s= o we are calling for review and input. Comments on the list or direct to the authors at draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture@tools.ietf.org Thanks! Adrian -----Original Message----- From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: 13 February 2014 11:50 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : A PCE-based Architecture for Application-based Network Operations Authors : Daniel King Adrian Farrel Filename : draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt Pages : 62 Date : 2014-02-13 Abstract: Services such as content distribution, distributed databases, or inter-data center connectivity place a set of new requirements on the operation of networks. They need on-demand and application-specific reservation of network connectivity, reliability, and resources (such as bandwidth) in a variety of network applications (such as point-to- point connectivity, network virtualization, or mobile back-haul) and in a range of network technologies from packet (IP/MPLS) down to optical. An environment that operates to meet this type of requirement is said to have Application-Based Network Operations (ABNO). ABNO brings together many existing technologies for gathering information about the resources available in a network, for consideration of topologies and how those topologies map to underlying network resources, for requesting path computation, and for provisioning or reserving network resources. Thus, ABNO may be seen as the use of a toolbox of existing components enhanced with a few new elements. The key component within an ABNO is the Path Computation Element (PCE), which can be used for computing paths and is further extended to provide policy enforcement capabilities for ABNO. This document describes an architecture and framework for ABNO showing how these components fit together. It provides a cookbook of existing technologies to satisfy the architecture and meet the needs of the applications. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-0= 7 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --_000_A8B603DC35804C22BE3325B856FFBBCBciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1BF1F0567C42444A8CD117BE33ABB28D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear WG,

Please provide your comments if any as soon as possible.

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

Begin forwarded message:

From:= Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Subje= ct: [Pce] Last chance for PC= E review of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture
Date:= February 13, 2014 at 1= 2:07:01 PM GMT
To: <= /b><pce@ietf.org>
Reply= -To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

Hi PCE,

Dan and I think that this draft is almost ready to be published as an RFC s= o we
are calling for review and input.

Comments on the list or direct to the authors at
dr= aft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture@tools.ietf.org

Thanks!

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
internet-drafts@ietf.org
Sent: 13 February 2014 11:50
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.


       Title     &nb= sp;     : A PCE-based Architecture for Application= -based
Network
Operations
       Authors     &= nbsp;   : Daniel King
            &nb= sp;            = Adrian Farrel
Filename &n= bsp;      : draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-archite= cture-07.txt
Pages  = ;         : 62
Date  =           : 2014-02-13
Abstract:
  Services such as content distribution, distributed databases, o= r
  inter-data center connectivity place a set of new requirements = on the
  operation of networks.  They need on-demand and applicatio= n-specific
  reservation of network connectivity, reliability, and resources= (such
  as bandwidth) in a variety of network applications (such as poi= nt-to-
  point connectivity, network virtualization, or mobile back-haul= ) and
  in a range of network technologies from packet (IP/MPLS) down t= o
  optical.  An environment that operates to meet this type o= f
  requirement is said to have Application-Based Network Operation= s
  (ABNO).

  ABNO brings together many existing technologies for gathering   information about the resources available in a network, for
  consideration of topologies and how those topologies map to
  underlying network resources, for requesting path computation, = and
  for provisioning or reserving network resources.  Thus, AB= NO may be
  seen as the use of a toolbox of existing components enhanced wi= th a
  few new elements.  The key component within an ABNO is the= Path
  Computation Element (PCE), which can be used for computing path= s and
  is further extended to provide policy enforcement capabilities = for
  ABNO.

  This document describes an architecture and framework for ABNO<= br>   showing how these components fit together.  It provides a = cookbook of
  existing technologies to satisfy the architecture and meet the = needs
  of the applications.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-0= 7


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

--_000_A8B603DC35804C22BE3325B856FFBBCBciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 01:32:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A382C1A045C for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:32:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNPh3Yhl0b_L for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from rudy.puc.rediris.es (rudy.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca01::132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79971A0453 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:32:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by rudy.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WKliM-0007Pt-5p; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:32:42 +0100 Received: from [31.133.165.128] (dhcp-a580.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.165.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B88E1FDFD; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:32:38 +0100 (CET) X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Message-ID: <53159DB7.40807@cttc.es> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:32:39 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas Organization: CTTC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" , Jonathan Hardwick Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080800000703050803060001" X-Spamina-Bogosity: Ham Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/E4KHD8HzOlATcMyFmsxgaU9uhMA Subject: [Pce] Question on new IRO type X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:32:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080800000703050803060001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All, As elaborated in [1] (see option c) 1. _Object Ordering_ Unfortunately RFC5440 does not mention anything regarding sub-object ordering, it only says "to specify that the computed path MUST traverse a set of specified network elements" and does not include some text in the spirit of "Objects within an IRO object MUST appear in theresultingERO in the same order that they appear in the IRO". Unless I ammistaken,this means that, at least in theory, we should not make assumptionswhetherthe sub-objects included in the IRO shall appear in the resultingERO in the same relative ordering. An implementation is free to iterate the IRO subobjects, mark the nodes and links that appear in the IRO and execute some kind of traveling salesman problem that makes sure that the path travereses the referred elements, albeit the order is not guaranteed. - The relative object ordering, however, is fundamental in the domain sequence. This can be made explicit in the new type, i.e. we canclearly define new procedures and restrictions for a new object type. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg02580.html -- Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. -- Senior Research Associate -- Networks Division Optical Networks and Systems Department -- http://wikiona.cttc.es CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia (PMT) - Edifici B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 ext 2168-- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01 --------------080800000703050803060001 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
All,

As elaborated in [1] (see option c)


    1. _Object Ordering_

    Unfortunately RFC5440 does not mention anything regarding sub-object
    ordering, it only says "to specify that the computed path MUST traverse
    a set of specified network elements" and does not include some text in
the spirit of "Objects within an IRO object MUST appear in the resulting ERO in the same order that they appear in the IRO". Unless I am mistaken, this means that, at least in theory, we should not make assumptions whether the sub-objects included in the IRO shall appear in the resulting ERO in the 
    same relative ordering. An implementation is free to iterate the IRO
    subobjects, mark the nodes and links that appear in the IRO and execute
    some kind of traveling salesman problem that makes sure that the path
    travereses the referred elements, albeit the order is not guaranteed.

    - The relative object ordering, however, is fundamental in the domain
sequence. This can be made explicit in the new type, i.e. we can clearly 
    define new procedures and restrictions for a new object type.


[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg02580.html 
-- 
Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. -- Senior Research Associate -- Networks Division
Optical Networks and Systems Department -- http://wikiona.cttc.es
CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia (PMT) - Edifici B4
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain
Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 ext 2168-- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01
--------------080800000703050803060001-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 01:36:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C5F1A0457 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:36:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KWBuE3pjyh4L for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from torres.puc.rediris.es (torres.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca00::9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257BF1A0429 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by torres.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WKlla-0006tD-I3; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:36:02 +0100 Received: from [31.133.165.128] (dhcp-a580.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.165.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71BBC1FDFD; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:35:56 +0100 (CET) X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Message-ID: <53159E7E.1060303@cttc.es> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:35:58 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas Organization: CTTC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" , Jonathan Hardwick References: <53159DB7.40807@cttc.es> In-Reply-To: <53159DB7.40807@cttc.es> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010207030300010806080808" X-Spamina-Bogosity: Ham Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/bfLgKbi_ks_ZOuWqIyTg-Ur7NYo Subject: Re: [Pce] Question on new IRO type X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:36:08 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010207030300010806080808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/04/2014 10:32 AM, Ramon Casellas wrote: > > All, > > As elaborated in [1] (see option c) Err, I meant b). The motivations were mainly: 1. _Object Ordering_ 2. _Different Scopes_ 3. _Limited Procedures_ 4. _Strict vs Loose_ R. --------------010207030300010806080808 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 03/04/2014 10:32 AM, Ramon Casellas wrote:

All,

As elaborated in [1] (see option c)
Err, I meant b).  The motivations were mainly:

  1. _Object Ordering_
    2. _Different Scopes_
    3. _Limited Procedures_
    4.  _Strict vs Loose_

R.

 --------------010207030300010806080808-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 01:48:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E937E1A0492 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:48:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TcWQ-njbmxrC for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55461A0175 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:47:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=358; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393926476; x=1395136076; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CkfDZ75LX0kUtOxcJdi5icEKvqUrLYpLN7QkqOImLkI=; b=B1ZFPPi1G4oHaCCfqeNCT+YF82CAk0+v15zj84hhuw1po6ZrgAc4qARq m/dRYJ8Gf8riLpg6v2P9CGFcQoFSRdg2YEkK48V0cIZhvZkWbZVNxuGue jsOKl7YdR6BjspOXfET9e2SMufqs68iAfM2F4vJKIUlhpR7Cxe/Vr27L9 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAPyfFVOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagwaBEsIMFnSCLDo0HQE+QicEiAyceq88F5F8gRQEmDySK4Mtgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,583,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="307905479" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2014 09:47:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s249ltK7022635 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:47:55 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.33]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:47:55 -0600 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5g== Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:47:54 +0000 Message-ID: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.108.219] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <84FE647F322B4E428502831061A3D2F5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/DKR99FT7FkOSah-cte5LmZF-6N4 Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:48:01 -0000 Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for = adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG=20 document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien.= From nobody Tue Mar 4 01:52:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577EA1A0457 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:52:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.925 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id knDouzh0lkaR for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AFD1A03E8 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p61so3430970wes.13 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 01:52:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=zLeflR2T7QHuAUPS87NHMRx6qUeCH+uouye3Cora+yA=; b=eprncbopWelaNecYN7fd8U0MNtQniqjOAes8whmKDPIwX7KHrgfw0nITRpYanffjGb wzrnblvRio6NxIKDTo5oqHXqaufumLhpBcQTtPMOzVPX0n85MsyOIR7v53dJ9Rite5E6 iiXFwSEHOQvZXWAtvwtlXWt6azjFKHw4iG9oEpBpa3hWcpbCIPzcFwD6Vm+eA5n2R/VZ I6BbXkfphvXWakGNP9AcBXJduBVt8Puav+PCrQ9wK3IP8wQbgDxFRU/CNKVoqE0m2gIQ uQrl9T1ApIAyLY6JtYK67Oqq4yEq8a8Kwoc0IlpUrKYpTDIHREYILp75Ae6oLAT8qLO2 sVdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=zLeflR2T7QHuAUPS87NHMRx6qUeCH+uouye3Cora+yA=; b=RBlCSVoZK9kNT9S0QUl2PLrQaz81BBX3zUs5uOTqz+eBX4qGjQ4JD+2yvHhucnSi8V jOIxwbaP2QtlS4uUkF2PC1ZFt3elRo5o4T7/mxNC0aIZ3jpt38Jg8Sty4ImP4f5H8y5r 1MG0hr2hZmUVnF2jJ0sMpZUTYbW0IEpOvAgaHEwt5fNuEJ9mcCLe5dPk5yKRk9Adc3U4 kF4CyuY2JBU86sQK3I5vP7h+GyYUIELycFisXZfHBM15gGhEqacJ1UB9u8ECOQBpJTqz U9kFDfIrwn2fZd03Xu3sWFqGeAmwIw3O+j76iu8rOck3OsqXhhQeoCoeFk4E2CzHhPWw y/SA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnS2Sgazd2a2/kvbCIgoaOfGdm9yGsuQPsE2nyviOGd9gHHKl58o5zpk7AvGcmX+ccmik20C1fyntQF5kILhXS+YigKLTJPXfTcNmPjcZS4GDsEleTvUR+UhmtDSrSF38zk0Jt8J68UFtQLsnX03dZT4uExqoOj13RWVf3fMMZlKyBncX8DmaTZPfMlktT/yWB222Ja X-Received: by 10.194.204.229 with SMTP id lb5mr14523710wjc.67.1393926726003; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 01:52:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.26.10 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:51:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> From: Edward Crabbe Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:51:25 +0000 Message-ID: To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bae466459e99804f3c4dbc5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/5Cy-CuL_AQ-67B98VNhHS1aoH7g Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:52:12 -0000 --047d7bae466459e99804f3c4dbc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:47 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for > adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG > document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --047d7bae466459e99804f3c4dbc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Support


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:47 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG
document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list.

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

--047d7bae466459e99804f3c4dbc5-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 02:12:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE331A0175 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:12:15 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHAwLcGEZ14d for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:12:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2901A053B for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id uy17so1064062igb.3 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 02:12:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=S9SLA2TnttFn3JBDZtsD1kILgajIK+MCYJ6slS6U5zM=; b=HTSVsABBZWA+nbTrHonP8S+F+5HXSx9/5ULgjn1BrYad3Kk4dgah2huvUDW6PUVn+K jWCPo9/sXbboQEawIxvS5T7eLQYT+MhZ4kZgD+59+EuKadl8MwFKTWPUuUcv4CAKxCzM S3BAWGi4nAal74AdAurmIeDL7cNS4vmUyKTmYQYL2cEXMFKKcdfL9JxCRWGlQofQ5mcy 1UkpFNps95qovDg3wYEBWPAzvQbSoVuCECofSU9A1Vjj7MUYo6Gk2z8Q5yEwYWLLM39N S1/veUrpgE/4/MSCLPPuba8pZH52/+k2t0oEkSH2FjMKQYa4FDsYbxc4yxVCz+qmZMJ5 ONQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.122.8 with SMTP id lo8mr28266689igb.31.1393927922393; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 02:12:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.112.103 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:12:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:12:02 +0000 Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015384fea8272a04f3c52252 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Z_zVcLtB0EOg4wksDAHAkUqZKn0 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:12:15 -0000 --089e015384fea8272a04f3c52252 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support (as a co-author) Regards, Dhruv On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:47 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for > adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG > document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --089e015384fea8272a04f3c52252 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support (as a co-author)

Regards,
Dhruv


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:47 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <j= vasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for = adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG
document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list.

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

--089e015384fea8272a04f3c52252-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 02:28:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27781A04E8 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:28:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y7jcss9-a6HF for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2BC1A042E for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEF27132; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:28:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:28:08 +0000 Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:28:33 +0000 Received: from szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.72]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:28:29 +0800 From: Udayasree palle To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prQucdw Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:28:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.147.110] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/CUlTRMHA2L3QKztoB6e9QfMSPw0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:28:41 -0000 Support -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: 04 March 2014 15:18 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for = adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we would like= to confirm on the mailing list. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 02:42:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECC01A049D for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:42:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVPEI4UO6RsE for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:42:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com [67.231.145.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCC81A0450 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:42:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0044012 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s24ACXpk010206; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:42:02 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fb.com; h=message-id : date : from : mime-version : to : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=facebook; bh=SJNAI/H+c+Orjw7G6VfOug7vTWRaQyY5yPOGZ4DeTjg=; b=Wh8h7d1DWXkOMVh7vS/ykEEQ3aBvcT92nbYZj+APiSyWO6JYh96tIH/MiCPlFAoZIey2 gD1b8CLe6kfQOLjhEW2Zio8hFdHrQaPFGa2iupPeOkMofkIU9UxKGI6wSM2Fq8ofs2t0 eq2v33iPTg5NpsUABGc39WzEExBPBQYL4Y8= Received: from mail.thefacebook.com (mailwest.thefacebook.com [173.252.71.148]) by mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1jcb35xp30-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 04 Mar 2014 02:42:02 -0800 Received: from [172.20.17.124] (192.168.16.4) by mail.TheFacebook.com (192.168.16.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:42:00 -0800 Message-ID: <5315ADF6.5060502@fb.com> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:41:58 +0000 From: Ebben Aries User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.16.4] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-03-04_04:2014-03-04,2014-03-04,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1403040016 X-FB-Internal: deliver Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/swqtQoQqTxfBPqSq1NipbUjG3BM Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:42:08 -0000 support On 03/04/2014 09:47 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG > document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh453ywaGV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A&m=AsybJvRTRH8UA1Lp9CgL32oTx%2B2pHvNvBShlTiyrrG8%3D%0A&s=59d6b926b8d106f18bc3ad111e85e499267371955fbb3197f61f83fc2e06ed77 > From nobody Tue Mar 4 02:45:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D031A021F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:45:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6Q8gNsZ3rwl for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D777D1A0096 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:45:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1W00D7OR7ZGM@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:45:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id D7.F9.05896.FCEA5135; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:45:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0N1W00D7LR7ZGM@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:45:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS8-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::41c8:e965:8a6:de67%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:45:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:45:34 +0000 From: "Diego R. Lopez" In-reply-to: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: Content-id: <3FDE5208E6A90E4B923FA5ECA8C57721@hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: en-US, es-ES Thread-topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prQrdwA X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f778e000001708-45-5315aecf3952 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqHt+nWiwwaI2U4um+zfYHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV0dS1jL1gDm/F8obZbA2MH3i6GDk5JARMJG6teMkGYYtJXLi3 Hsjm4hAS2MYocfvTWVYI5xujxK8tDawgVUICGxglfk7zBbFZBFQlZjc3MYPYbED2o+bf7CC2 sICPxNQXt8FsTgFbiXWH3rJDbFCQ+HPuMQuILSKgKPH9xmqwzbwClhLvWy4wgdjMAmYSS7+f ZYaIC0r8mHwPqJ4DKK4uMWVKLkSJuERz600WCFtRYtqiBkYQm1FAVuLd/PmsIOUiAr4SPxvM IDYZSdx72QZ1gYDEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/9BfWUj0XLyHNMERvFZSI6YheSIWQhHzEJyxCwkRyxg ZF3FKFacVJSZnlGSm5iZk25gpJeRqZeZl1qyiRESWZk7GJfvVDnEKMDBqMTDq3FKJFiINbGs uDL3EKMEB7OSCK/iQtFgId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4xMHJxSDYw+DRcMwpVMTjyMuLl52dwd F3lk3zDL/nlycsftFZvfmMk9+LSL0bg1eE1A0me9qhvlIR/PODYzR9evbPxs0r/uwW6rA93z w1d5Tzn3r6JZZJ7cmUX+s1iObOuoncw7MzX5WY3/sVudiqUbfzlHi3Q3FxlLdtqv8uDRfD/3 2+afAqWnm5fcb9dWYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAXsKToooCAAA= References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Pt22ODXn6wNjOiZDOeaHFnecnnw Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:45:42 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCAoYXMgeW91IGNvdWxkIGV4cGVjdC4uLikNCg0KT24gNCBNYXIgMjAxNCwgYXQgMDk6 NDcgLCBKUCBWYXNzZXVyIChqdmFzc2V1cikgPGp2YXNzZXVyQGNpc2NvLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoN Cj4gRGVhciBXRywNCj4NCj4gQXMgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgUENFIFdHIG1lZXRpbmcg dG9kYXkgd2hlcmUgd2UgaGFkIGdvb2Qgc3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtbG9wZXot cGNlLXBjZXBzLTAyIGFzIGEgV0cNCj4gZG9jdW1lbnQsIGFzIHVzdWFsLCB3ZSB3b3VsZCBsaWtl IHRvIGNvbmZpcm0gb24gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4NCj4NCj4gV291bGQgeW91IGJlIGluIGZh dm9yL29wcG9zZWQgKGFuZCB3aHkgaWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8ganVzdGlmeSkgb2YgYWRvcHRpbmcg ZHJhZnQtbG9wZXotcGNlLXBjZXBzLTAyIGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgPw0KPg0KPiBUaGFua3Mu DQo+DQo+IEpQIGFuZCBKdWxpZW4uDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IFBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gUGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlDQoNCg0KLS0NCiJFc3RhIHZl eiBubyBmYWxsYXJlbW9zLCBEb2N0b3IgSW5maWVybm8iDQoNCkRyIERpZWdvIFIuIExvcGV6DQpU ZWxlZm9uaWNhIEkrRA0KaHR0cDovL3Blb3BsZS50aWQuZXMvZGllZ28ubG9wZXovDQoNCmUtbWFp bDogZGllZ29AdGlkLmVzDQpUZWw6ICAgICszNCA5MTMgMTI5IDA0MQ0KTW9iaWxlOiArMzQgNjgy IDA1MSAwOTENCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoNCg0K X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRXN0ZSBtZW5zYWplIHNlIGRpcmln ZSBleGNsdXNpdmFtZW50ZSBhIHN1IGRlc3RpbmF0YXJpby4gUHVlZGUgY29uc3VsdGFyIG51ZXN0 cmEgcG9sw610aWNhIGRlIGVudsOtbyB5IHJlY2VwY2nDs24gZGUgY29ycmVvIGVsZWN0csOzbmlj byBlbiBlbCBlbmxhY2Ugc2l0dWFkbyBtw6FzIGFiYWpvLg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGlzIGludGVu ZGVkIGV4Y2x1c2l2ZWx5IGZvciBpdHMgYWRkcmVzc2VlLiBXZSBvbmx5IHNlbmQgYW5kIHJlY2Vp dmUgZW1haWwgb24gdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9mIHRoZSB0ZXJtcyBzZXQgb3V0IGF0Og0KaHR0cDovL3d3 dy50aWQuZXMvRVMvUEFHSU5BUy9kaXNjbGFpbWVyLmFzcHgNCg== From nobody Tue Mar 4 02:50:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111501A021F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:50:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.541 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q4ChYSXFx73k for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626281A03AC for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEF29520; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:50:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:50:00 +0000 Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:50:28 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.85]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:50:21 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prQv7RQ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:50:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.124.106] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/C3446yc8LEhos7V9VkA44ytlv5o Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogQWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtbG9wZXotcGNlLXBj?= =?gb2312?b?ZXBzLTAyIGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1bWVudCA/?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:50:38 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0Lg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzIQ0KLVFpbg0KLS0tLS3T yrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQq3orz+yMs6IFBjZSBbbWFpbHRvOnBjZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0 +rHtIEpQIFZhc3NldXIgKGp2YXNzZXVyKQ0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTTE6jPUwjTI1SAxNzo0OA0K ytW8/sjLOiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3zOI6IFtQY2VdIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWxvcGV6 LXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0wMiBhcyBQQ0UgV0cgRG9jdW1lbnQgPw0KDQpEZWFyIFdHLA0KDQpBcyBkaXNj dXNzZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBQQ0UgV0cgbWVldGluZyB0b2RheSB3aGVyZSB3ZSBoYWQgZ29vZCBz dXBwb3J0IGZvciBhZG9wdGluZyBkcmFmdC1sb3Blei1wY2UtcGNlcHMtMDIgYXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1 bWVudCwgYXMgdXN1YWwsIHdlIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gY29uZmlybSBvbiB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0Lg0KDQpXb3VsZCB5b3UgYmUgaW4gZmF2b3Ivb3Bwb3NlZCAoYW5kIHdoeSBpZiB5b3Ugd2Fu dCB0byBqdXN0aWZ5KSBvZiBhZG9wdGluZyBkcmFmdC1sb3Blei1wY2UtcGNlcHMtMDIgYXMgYSBX RyBkb2N1bWVudCA/DQoNClRoYW5rcy4NCg0KSlAgYW5kIEp1bGllbi4NCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpQY2VA aWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlDQo= From nobody Tue Mar 4 02:51:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E6D1A02CE for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:51:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oir-2RhgQVxs for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C550B1A06D9 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:51:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=343; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393930301; x=1395139901; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4xaKDZh2IEMtXk8uNbwW+nTwQj9glKL//yffvKZ9lo4=; b=EPr+fIhuX64C4G+zPEHC6747a9HBTtfJiey41RpRqS3lC4Dbu37eGrnC V6/FkMTm0NTmo9F01oYhtQv7KRcb7V4W7itNPYBOIE4+1DBA5UFKzV26q QiFIjyH6LCPH/7m2Gr905we5wcXtXI+CCgYWibOClKy4eXmo5LWqHOplu s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAOavFVOtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABagwaBEsINFnSCLDpRAT5CJwSIDJ0IrzwXkXyBFASYPJIrgW+BPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,584,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="24750695" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2014 10:51:41 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s24ApfTn000514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:51:41 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.33]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:51:41 -0600 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1Aw== Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:51:41 +0000 Message-ID: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.105.213] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/pOLqKbHnmmRzS_YNurU12uVd5VA Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:51:49 -0000 Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for = adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt=20 as a PCE WG. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien.= From nobody Tue Mar 4 03:05:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4DF1A06D2 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:05:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s-_WOaK6fhmU for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm41.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm41.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.120.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 653C11A029F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm41.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2014 11:05:11 -0000 Received: from [98.138.101.129] by nm41.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2014 11:02:19 -0000 Received: from [98.137.12.59] by tm17.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2014 11:02:19 -0000 Received: from [98.137.12.226] by tm4.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2014 11:02:19 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1034.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2014 11:02:19 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 173803.41658.bm@omp1034.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 7978 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Mar 2014 11:02:19 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1393930939; bh=qdCW3INRDWODKyfdbGzm+DmcdZoWXLKpamDSYZA7v9s=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kHIOf8EI5012kVGuVWQOwnccXj4Ek1uTVt4DgNIJuddbfCwolJF9bAxLHkX9X89lYV0s8zvy18Si3UTaY3Z8mJIhwZyTIbMYGkv543t20LQ48v55JfY+JSn7wcqYx0aMvQkyWV2DaVR8BfDBAMmNM9tBrsO/r0gvBMn9aNGZYVg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JiKXww4rM1F9u67ssmpQJIVnFkGfn0irKcPlqz+6sWeswvFoyYezwHWa0hwUE+M9KA4aUOIgXoTOLUIs+RHD90RmOYPusMjAJHJCxXJT1r3ApLgPNzkItxJlmZ4DIcrpCE4Eq5Y1DzwCHSpiv4tfXWJSmLjTd9KDzFBYCteohMk=; X-YMail-OSG: FdI4R2YVM1mtKnwe3VAUTst7wIYvusQ4_190NCYF00BRArZ UKcrg0c0twKTJ13uz1HUwWOleteFwUqn1wzkqEY6VR9vJGCgD4PLFn6osY4W eaDi_8OWdQ10CjK8YaoHB8Da5np1mg9EjNvKwnckz7A4CjIbTBVTsiETNDX_ edyPLjxg1sdJFzqef_izP30IYjdOISBtk1wHJA6K01fwQxiO2x.GnBdTCElh 3fK.tlzLkbOsBjdDukvVa_j_ZnD8T.yeNcgPbEIxsFvyrr.HUSaELY2d.Faw ntf.SnjMO1vok20kXGsfhVo_7P__dl2YqHdM8not8TMYd.kFFbhdC_bUwCIz chiD2SCNU4.c4gd6bucxk0xunsaRbnCKTtLyBgp.6APsbbhQZkpmRFSPlFIj NY6Rcpcs7ti4Njy9XJZdVExsKgJvhmkX0JmghqgRNvYpYPVgzbhXcJyTZRFj 1mCxpE8FYsz0DgdDuAT8CYlMPh74RuEZfKqUSRPCqn8FFJf6uHhem2rO3xTi Yhk9AnZUkZ8DC8UaIPmYxorVjif6mAwprlIKp8TRSSMiYddCRr5lxT7SKhiE AYbcSS8a_dJW9eIEmLyjS9RwRXqY- Received: from [71.178.5.234] by web164805.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:02:19 PST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, U3VwcG9ydC4KCgoKQnJnZHMsREcuCgoiwqBJJ3ZlwqBoYWTCoGdvb2Qgc2Vhc29ucyBhbmQgc29tZSBkZWVwbHnCoHBhaW5mdWwgb25lcy7CoEkndmXCoG1hZGXCoHNvbWUgc3BlY3RhY3VsYXJsecKgZ29vZCBjaG9pY2VzIGFuZMKgc29tZcKgb3V0cmFnZW91c2x5IGJhZCBtaXN0YWtlcy4gSSdtwqB2ZXJ5wqBodW1hbiAtIGEgd29yayBpbiBwcm9ncmVzcyIuIMKgLSBSb2JpbiBTaGFybWEuCn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn5.fn7CoAoKCgpPbiBUdWVzZGF5LCABMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.177.636 References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Message-ID: <1393930939.16656.YahooMailNeo@web164805.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:02:19 -0800 (PST) From: Durgaprasad Gangisetti To: "Diego R. Lopez" , "pce@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="599790179-1106111985-1393930939=:16656" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/l5G49ldeZGewutVukAi7p8HZU7o Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Durgaprasad Gangisetti List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:05:16 -0000 --599790179-1106111985-1393930939=:16656 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support.=0A=0A=0A=0ABrgds,DG.=0A=0A"=A0I've=A0had=A0good seasons and some d= eeply=A0painful ones.=A0I've=A0made=A0some spectacularly=A0good choices and= =A0some=A0outrageously bad mistakes. I'm=A0very=A0human - a work in progres= s". =A0- Robin Sharma.=0A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= =A0=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:00 AM, Diego R. Lopez wrote:=0A =0ASupport (as you could expect...)=0A=0AOn 4 Mar 2014, at 0= 9:47 , JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote:=0A=0A> Dear WG,=0A= >=0A> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good suppor= t for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG=0A> document, as usual, we = would like to confirm on the mailing list.=0A>=0A> Would you be in favor/op= posed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02= as a WG document ?=0A>=0A> Thanks.=0A>=0A> JP and Julien.=0A> ____________= ___________________________________=0A> Pce mailing list=0A> Pce@ietf.org= =0A> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce=0A=0A=0A--=0A"Esta vez no fa= llaremos, Doctor Infierno"=0A=0ADr Diego R. Lopez=0ATelefonica I+D=0Ahttp:/= /people.tid.es/diego.lopez/=0A=0Ae-mail: diego@tid.es=0ATel:=A0 =A0 +34 913= 129 041=0AMobile: +34 682 051 091=0A--------------------------------------= ---=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0AEste mensaje se dirige ex= clusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol=EDtica de env= =EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enlace situado m=E1s abajo= .=0AThis message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send an= d receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:=0Ahttp://www.tid.es/E= S/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx=0A=0A____________________________________________= ___=0APce mailing list=0APce@ietf.org=0Ahttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listin= fo/pce --599790179-1106111985-1393930939=:16656 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support.
=0A

Brgds,DG.

"&nb= sp;I've had good seasons and some deeply painful ones. = I've made some spectacularly good choices and some = ;outrageously bad mistakes. I'm very human - a work in progress".=  - Robin Sharma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=  

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:00 AM, Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es>= wrote:
Support (as you = could expect...)

On 4 Mar 2014, at 09:47 , JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> As discuss= ed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for adopting d= raft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG
> document, as usual, = we would like to confirm on the mailing list.
>
> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to just= ify) of adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP and Julien.
> __________________________= _____________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce<= /a>


--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego@tid.es
Tel:    = +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
-----------------------------------------


________________________________
=
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario.= Puede consultar nuestra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enlace situado m=E1s abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We on= ly send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

______________= _________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://ww= w.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce


=
--599790179-1106111985-1393930939=:16656-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 03:23:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16681A0722; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:23:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xGmGqCYUJ0Mj; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2607:f170:8000:1500::d3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016D11A070A; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id DFC927FC3AC; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:23:37 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20140304112337.DFC927FC3AC@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:23:37 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/0ereOroxCsEV5Ylycnv9_kreo78 Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, pce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Pce] RFC 7150 on Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:23:48 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7150 Title: Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol Author: F. Zhang, A. Farrel Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2014 Mailbox: zhangfatai@huawei.com, adrian@olddog.co.uk Pages: 12 Characters: 24156 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7150.txt The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) is used to convey path computation requests and responses both between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs) and between cooperating PCEs. In PCEP, the path computation requests carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC wishes the PCE to apply in its computation. This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Variable that can be carried in any existing PCEP object. This document is a product of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Tue Mar 4 03:45:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA3C1A0724 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:45:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v1ulOESvFwRl for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B395C1A002A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBS65105; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:45:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:44:28 +0000 Received: from SZXEML415-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.154) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:44:56 +0000 Received: from SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.210]) by szxeml415-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.154]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:44:50 +0800 From: Avantika To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prQsCKA Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:44:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.152.79] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/IxXjKn_dMWHY5_TbQfMipzoMXlw Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:45:07 -0000 Support! -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: 04 March 2014 15:18 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for = adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG=20 document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 06:22:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193091A0162 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:22:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9mMBRbFYrfBF for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 813711A00C3 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:21:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=804; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393942917; x=1395152517; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4ymYKAiL9Uyj7zcz0oHl1vUh1138CrxpxwKuuTJUfLI=; b=OeuTVVS5rT08Kk1kpyYk6nGeFRptTt6fUwqjzlL9gNTAw4pGkAviVfyo A6ilyHnbZuq9lbz0NKdTpA05RAeMyVFBzLYTZY3TRdxGCNTkkHB09nEBu GHqmwv0oH/B3RwRfP2TKtytfQNZXIbx7rG9QARkE7xq0Nov3iLFt+jbH9 c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAPPgFVOtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABagwg4VbxWgR4WAXSDfQEBAQQBAQFrFwYBCBEDAQJWCx0IAgQBEogEDcQ4EwSPGQaEMAEDmBaSFIFtgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,863,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="304897391" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2014 14:21:56 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s24ELtkn006633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:21:56 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.212]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:21:55 -0600 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rRYIAA Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:21:54 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.82.225.113] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <0A777DBE123CDD4980A8322DCDF1665E@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Wu2oX5L1u1EUIkPGIIJzuB762FU Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:22:01 -0000 Hi-=20 Support (as a co-author). Thanks Regards =8A Zafar -----Original Message----- From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 5:51 AM To: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? >Dear WG, > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support >for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt >as a PCE WG. > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document >? > >Thanks. > >JP and Julien. >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 06:36:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B55F1A0167 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:36:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQ9065xMDufg for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw010.noc.ntt.com (mgw010.noc.ntt.com [210.160.55.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921C21A015D for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from c0043i0.coe.ntt.com (c0043i0.nc.agilit-hosting.com [10.18.161.12]) by mgw010.noc.ntt.com (NTT Com MailSV) with ESMTP id 90FF457A0360; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 23:36:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from C0037I0.coe.ntt.com (10.18.160.41) by c0043i0.coe.ntt.com (10.18.161.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.438.0; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 23:36:19 +0900 Received: from C0007I0.coe.ntt.com ([169.254.1.196]) by C0037I0.coe.ntt.com ([10.18.160.41]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 23:36:20 +0900 From: Yosuke Tanaka To: "'JP Vasseur (jvasseur)'" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prQ/u6A Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:36:18 +0000 Message-ID: <4382467A240ADE4C8552523C24D51B575806B0D5@C0007I0.coe.ntt.com> References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ccmail-original-to: jvasseur@cisco.com, pce@ietf.org x-originating-ip: [10.25.146.191] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/E-7p1ORX3kF_Bzx7hlTvpzfGwoQ Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:36:29 -0000 support -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 6:48 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 09:36:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908661A01D9 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8W-JmCmI0JIJ for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ENFIRHETS1.metaswitch.com (enfirhets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF671A024A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.74.36) by ENFIRHETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.209.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:35:51 +0000 Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::b06d:4d13:5f63:3715%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:36:04 +0000 From: Jonathan Hardwick To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prRMQbw Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:36:04 +0000 Message-ID: <09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBAE135B248@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.34.178] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/gP8sr1OUzYwzY_6vClx8A6Ycu98 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:36:14 -0000 Support. -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: 04 March 2014 09:48 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for = adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG=20 document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 09:51:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2EC1A023E for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:51:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ikBmDnh-POm for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:51:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from tidos.tid.es (tidos.tid.es [195.235.93.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB451A01F1 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet [10.95.64.104]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1X00JXMAY0VM@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:51:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from dequeue_removeroute (tid.hi.inet [10.95.64.10]) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E5.45.03314.8A216135; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:51:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1X00JXIAY0VM@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:51:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS5-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:51:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:51:35 +0000 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: Content-id: <384F55DEFCE395438F452087C4F52A6D@hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-index: AQHPN9Ji0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5g== user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7fe58e000000cf2-7f-531612a8f8f2 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe/ApbtCSCzYoKtb3qLp/g12B0aPJUt+ MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBl9Eycy1IwnaNi1+/3zA2MZ9i6GDk5JARMJO4vecMEYYtJXLi3 HijOxSEkcIBR4v//90wQzldGiatf1kM50xgl/k3eywrSwiKgKtG4ZzpYO5uAg8S6Rb1gY4UF fCSmvrjNDjFWQeLPuccsILaIgL/E68dTmbsYOTh4BbQlvjZIg4SZBcwk9r2aCtbKKyAo8WPy PRaIuI5E7/dvzBC2uMScXxNZIWxtiSfvLoDZjAKyEivPn2YEGSki4Cvxs8EMYpOexK1d0xlB bFEg+96juSwQ1whILNlznhnCFpV4+fgf6wRGsVlIrpiF5IpZSK6YheSKWUiuWMDIuopRrDip KDM9oyQ3MTMn3cBQLyNTLzMvtWQTIySKMnYwLt+pcohRgINRiYdX45RIsBBrYllxZe4hRgkO ZiURXtMXosFCvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGGfJznK/efFadOP+Byx/WkQXbpoZXiVo sk344901lT+1FDpfnpZ9Ze7H/aI6+8SBa6u6L520yNeY/UPBPLd8x/3S4hPpnzxvLaowvf7W bMGdjZueLBSqLL/H+uqJL8f/vPal216oyxw5r3m6nL+tasmZ3xs2stZIp73T+RKy7Oj9jWtn Lquz2CiuxFKckWioxVxUnAgAIWdxAoACAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/A7IP_fxTJeFCwQq5LDuCyVm1-yI Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:51:45 -0000 Support (as co-author). Best Regards, Oscar El 04/03/14 10:47, "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" escribi=F3: >Dear WG, > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support >for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG >document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > >Thanks. > >JP and Julien. >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From nobody Tue Mar 4 10:12:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FF41A0227 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:12:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.468 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pDTFI52EOOf5 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3670B1A0302 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E83575D8995 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:12:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF1B5D885A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:12:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:12:13 +0100 Received: from [10.193.116.62] ([10.193.116.62]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:12:09 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2014 18:12:12.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[43D77870:01CF37D5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/129mH1TBb6tfVDQbFCQ5GA2-Gn4 Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:12:48 -0000 Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting it as a WG document? Thanks. JP and Julien. From nobody Tue Mar 4 10:28:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBEF1A0002 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:28:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hyrqODg3Ri6F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CD71A01F1 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:28:16 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f858e0000031c7-c1-53161b381ef2 Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DD.27.12743.93B16135; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:28:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:28:12 -0500 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Julien Meuric Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9VcBiO9gIeeEkGMzGjMdEzAGprRP1QY Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:28:11 +0000 Message-ID: <866560F5-0948-4820-97CB-C8955FC07065@ericsson.com> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoK6ltFiwwa3dQhZ/Tv9lsmi6f4Pd gcljyZKfTB4tz06yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGX83rWIqeAQS8XNu0eZGhivMHcxcnJICJhI 7Np0B8oWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJFX0wzjJGiSk/fzCBVLEJGEj8/3acBcQWEdCROP/+DDuI zSygKLH9wBpGEFtYIEFi3sIGdoiaRInT714wQ9hGEtcW7wWzWQRUJCbMPQFWwytgL/GrdTtY XEhAU2LmpAdAizk4OAW0JD5N5QEJMwId9/3UGiaIVeISt57MZ4I4WkBiyZ7zUA+ISrx8/I8V okZHYsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvmSFWCUqcnPmEZQKj6Cwko2YhaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGDlKi1PLctON DDYxAqPhmASb7g7GPS8tDzFKc7AoifN+eescJCSQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoEx fprEC4bJV+3y3fasvMm+I/bzJrcl8h51+ue7717Z5Hyn/13j0nPbpocbxJd6Lf/ALq36tERZ 9gVrweagYNXtDz9dCLs7Zc6mS+GreRZLbdryfgvj3tBPlx4L6rItklGbpHRhxXO76hi291/E DSRZpt7yUC6btfTR3m1/Ax9JJXYeEz2keNRvtRJLcUaioRZzUXEiAAoSxxlUAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/frdwBdkFQnmNlGh_xJ4qVWqm01w Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:28:22 -0000 Yes/support Regards, Jeff > On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:12 PM, "Julien Meuric" wr= ote: >=20 > Dear WG, >=20 > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for ado= pting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. >=20 > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adoptin= g it as a WG document? >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > JP and Julien. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 10:33:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448A01A02FA for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L1SPSPmG4j7a for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E3D1A0262 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id rp18so8032544iec.33 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=u90GvywY/NB9HegwFd0qE506VNDtyLaxRJS+xv/v/VI=; b=TRNsEP8vyzbg10F51gUY9xss37kiWRkBaOf4TR35Or5RUgSvgo4EBik4zk/9TdvWGP Fl7psPolb7pz2nLTEPJgqjCx0ezcD4aA1vVtVbXT+UI62G8/cZ5tQVPBsXUoD5a4KFdG t0kOpodvl0mM+4cYsfHBwmHm5k8CQ67Y5C8pfmRZzgDJK8ksLqB5FcWIBIsQo3s/A663 nLpKHf9uOZA5pQLT1ijifgIgMaY+1u/Ap8I7Uyh6G6EmJ2bmnjW/MvXanna9d/oqT+iH y22pgtC4VQzL2qiwVPYSvuKkMzZJgXBJ31gr4gGEnrn7MojCL45Bj3TDOEgPX4cb7eS/ WiiA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.11.36 with SMTP id n4mr30129397igb.3.1393957982424; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.112.103 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.112.103 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <866560F5-0948-4820-97CB-C8955FC07065@ericsson.com> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> <866560F5-0948-4820-97CB-C8955FC07065@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:33:02 +0000 Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: Jeff Tantsura Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca8be5fd68204f3cc2205 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/_YjNDtuh6rE1lVPLSEyMbzMLy6E Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:33:09 -0000 --047d7bdca8be5fd68204f3cc2205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support (as a co-author) Regards, Dhruv On Mar 4, 2014 6:28 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" wrote: > Yes/support > > Regards, > Jeff > > > On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:12 PM, "Julien Meuric" > wrote: > > > > Dear WG, > > > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > > > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of > adopting it as a WG document? > > > > Thanks. > > > > JP and Julien. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --047d7bdca8be5fd68204f3cc2205 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support (as a co-author)

Regards,
Dhruv

On Mar 4, 2014 6:28 PM, "Jeff Tantsura"= ; <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.= com> wrote:
Yes/support

Regards,
Jeff

> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:12 PM, "Julien Meuric" <julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for = adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. >
> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adop= ting it as a WG document?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP and Julien.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--047d7bdca8be5fd68204f3cc2205-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 10:49:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9421A02EF for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:49:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FzyfHxTllHxC for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7E21A0187 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1X008MADMO1Y@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:49:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 7A.55.05896.04026135; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:49:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0N1X008M7DMO1Y@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:49:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS7-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:49:36 +0100 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:49:35 +0000 From: "Diego R. Lopez" In-reply-to: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> To: "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: en-US, es-ES Thread-topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-index: AQHPN9VeDy1wfWj+Q0CWhWzv+6AqWprRRU/u X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f778e000001708-62-53162040493a X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqOugIBZsMKVJ36Lp/g12B0aPJUt+ MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlNFx4w1rwgavi9obrrA2MZ7i6GDk5JARMJHa2tbFB2GISF+6t B7K5OIQEtjFK7H/Uww7hfGOU+HL7DiuEM41RomlxIwtIC4uAqsTy74cZQWw2IPtR8292EFtY IEHi9aejYDangJbEwaMQNSICihLfb6wGW8crYCnRt6qXBcIWlPgx+R6QzcHBLKAuMWVKLkiY WUBcorn1JguErSgxbVED2BhGAVmJd/Pns0KMTJRYt+YOE4RtJLFrx3cmiG8EJJbsOc8MYYtK vHz8D6xeSEBTYuakB2wTGEVnIdk8C2HzLCSbZyHZvICRZRWjWHFSUWZ6RkluYmZOuoGRXkam XmZeaskmRkhUZO5gXL5T5RCjAAejEg+vximRYCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivKYvRIOFeFMSK6tS i/Lji0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MIr62szhT795VGnJj+1zb3r9Spxw4bOt1rbC9Wpxtd//XTNu3cUk F5oZwVYeUZlhfVvA3qVPsuGWbgzTukMr3ecV6wlf+vvRKONwxA+LOGPNJ5v52d0f8AQxRruq 2xWp/7h6eP6RTzeWXq7jzPE5K3LuKveDm+vz/je3zd8t8um9XqCe4NoL3UosxRmJhlrMRcWJ AKBnIMZoAgAA References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/caL4q7BAgbbH7BX1TY25KSu6dK4 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:49:45 -0000 U3VwcG9ydA0KDQotLQ0KTGlrZWx5IHRvIGJlIGJyaWVmIGFuZCBub3QgdmVyeQ0KZWxhYm9yYXRl IGFzIHNlbnQgZnJvbSBteSBtb2JpbGUNCkRpZWdvIFIuIExvcGV6DQpUZWxlZm9uaWNhIEkrRA0K DQoNCj4gT24gMDQgTWFyIDIwMTQsIGF0IDE4OjEyLCAiSnVsaWVuIE1ldXJpYyIgPGp1bGllbi5t ZXVyaWNAb3JhbmdlLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+IERlYXIgV0csDQo+DQo+IEFzIGRpc2N1c3Nl ZCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIFBDRSBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIHRvZGF5LCB3ZSBoYWQgc29tZSBzdXBwb3J0IGZv ciBhZG9wdGluZyBkcmFmdC1taW5laS1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtc3luYy1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb25zLTAx IGFzIGEgUENFIFdHIGl0ZW0uDQo+DQo+IFdvdWxkIHlvdSBiZSBpbiBmYXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIChh bmQgd2h5IGlmIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGp1c3RpZnkpIG9mIGFkb3B0aW5nIGl0IGFzIGEgV0cgZG9j dW1lbnQ/DQo+DQo+IFRoYW5rcy4NCj4NCj4gSlAgYW5kIEp1bGllbi4NCj4NCj4gX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dA0KPiBQY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5m by9wY2UNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRXN0ZSBtZW5zYWpl IHNlIGRpcmlnZSBleGNsdXNpdmFtZW50ZSBhIHN1IGRlc3RpbmF0YXJpby4gUHVlZGUgY29uc3Vs dGFyIG51ZXN0cmEgcG9sw610aWNhIGRlIGVudsOtbyB5IHJlY2VwY2nDs24gZGUgY29ycmVvIGVs ZWN0csOzbmljbyBlbiBlbCBlbmxhY2Ugc2l0dWFkbyBtw6FzIGFiYWpvLg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdl IGlzIGludGVuZGVkIGV4Y2x1c2l2ZWx5IGZvciBpdHMgYWRkcmVzc2VlLiBXZSBvbmx5IHNlbmQg YW5kIHJlY2VpdmUgZW1haWwgb24gdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9mIHRoZSB0ZXJtcyBzZXQgb3V0IGF0Og0K aHR0cDovL3d3dy50aWQuZXMvRVMvUEFHSU5BUy9kaXNjbGFpbWVyLmFzcHgNCg== From nobody Tue Mar 4 11:14:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0721A0274 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:14:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f4QH2TrGVjT7 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023391A0187 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:14:26 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f2f8e000002cdc-dd-531626102527 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D9.BC.11484.01626135; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 20:14:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:14:23 -0500 From: Uma Chunduri To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prRTEqA Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:14:22 +0000 Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F1EA1DB@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiK6AmliwwfYWQ4sZW94yWzTdv8Hu wOQx5fdGVo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGU0LPnBVvCFraJ343bmBsaLrF2MnBwSAiYS u26tZYSwxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcIRR4vCkdewQzjJGiRkHnzKBVLEJ6El8nPoTKMHBISIQKNH4 PAEkLCzgJtHe85ENxBYRcJf4+b2PCcI2klh4chvYMhYBFYl3bzaxgNi8Ar4Sr5+vBqsRErCR aDl5DszmFLCVaLp+EKyeEeig76fWgMWZBcQlbj2ZzwRxqIDEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/9BPaMk8fH3 fHaIeh2JBbs/sUHY2hLLFr5mhtgrKHFy5hOWCYyis5CMnYWkZRaSlllIWhYwsqxi5CgtTi3L TTcy3MQIjIZjEmyOOxgXfLI8xCjNwaIkzvvlrXOQkEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6p BsbajcdXK5fGcFmzVv6Rupry2kGt9phB4OG1KrV707TK7lzIFpLi2r6CJ/zIAwfNlcszvzct PtGzoHQPd8mJHT1iN62F3FZOmu9evWV/51XdSxvrLzk8CrDRfi524azY2cTsfTWsx3eqqC67 +IBPXCCb5XH84t3Td9/aw3M3pNTRY8L3e9mecWuVWIozEg21mIuKEwGxtaOUVAIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/NQ7oPHy2UU4vDdClfP8PolRHLzc Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:14:33 -0000 Provided my feedback to one of the authors on this draft earlier. This document should definitely not be "experimental". I fully support this. -- Uma C. -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:48 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for = adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we would like= to confirm on the mailing list. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 14:32:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30A11A0345 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:32:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edGfJ_Fu_CS7 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:32:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0CF1A0344 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBT07655; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 22:32:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:30:03 +0000 Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:30:30 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.85]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:30:27 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rRYIAAgAAjBtA= Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:30:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.87.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/mqvZXKHAZN37gu7pObV1bn0Eo78 Subject: [Pce] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgQWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtYWxpLXBjZS1y?= =?utf-8?q?emote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03=2Etxt_as_PCE_WG_Document_=3F?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 22:32:51 -0000 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KLS0tLS3pgq7ku7bljp/ku7YtLS0tLQ0K5Y+R5Lu25Lq6OiBQY2UgW21haWx0 bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10g5Luj6KGoIFphZmFyIEFsaSAoemFsaSkNCuWPkemAgeaX tumXtDogMjAxNOW5tDPmnIg05pelIDIyOjIyDQrmlLbku7bkuro6IEpQIFZhc3NldXIgKGp2YXNz ZXVyKTsgcGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQrkuLvpopg6IFJlOiBbUGNlXSBBZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1h bGktcGNlLXJlbW90ZS1pbml0aWF0ZWQtZ21wbHMtbHNwLTAzLnR4dCBhcyBQQ0UgV0cgRG9jdW1l bnQgPw0KDQpIaS0gDQoNClN1cHBvcnQgKGFzIGEgY28tYXV0aG9yKS4NCg0KVGhhbmtzDQoNClJl Z2FyZHMgxaAgWmFmYXINCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogIkpQ IFZhc3NldXIgICAoanZhc3NldXIpIiA8anZhc3NldXJAY2lzY28uY29tPg0KRGF0ZTogVHVlc2Rh eSwgTWFyY2ggNCwgMjAxNCA1OjUxIEFNDQpUbzogInBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZyIgPHBjZUBpZXRmLm9y Zz4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFtQY2VdIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRp YXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0DQphcyBQQ0UgV0cgRG9jdW1lbnQgPw0KDQo+RGVhciBXRywN Cj4NCj5BcyBkaXNjdXNzZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBQQ0UgV0cgbWVldGluZyB0b2RheSB3aGVyZSB3 ZSBoYWQgc29tZSBzdXBwb3J0IA0KPmZvciBhZG9wdGluZyBkcmFmdC1hbGktcGNlLXJlbW90ZS1p bml0aWF0ZWQtZ21wbHMtbHNwLTAzLnR4dA0KPmFzIGEgUENFIFdHLg0KPg0KPldvdWxkIHlvdSBi ZSBpbiBmYXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIChhbmQgd2h5IGlmIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGp1c3RpZnkpIG9mIA0K PmFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRpYXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0 IGFzIGEgV0cgDQo+ZG9jdW1lbnQgPw0KPg0KPlRoYW5rcy4NCj4NCj5KUCBhbmQgSnVsaWVuLg0K Pl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+UGNlIG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPlBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4v bGlzdGluZm8vcGNlDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fDQpQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpQY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYu b3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlDQo= From nobody Tue Mar 4 14:32:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A3D1A0343 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:32:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.541 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RDepqauoeoqk for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:32:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7661A0348 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:32:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBT07675; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 22:32:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:31:23 +0000 Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:31:50 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.85]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:31:44 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9VcaMG+qkMtO0eAKlP86ARrdJrRg1/A Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:31:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.87.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/v50KLSLqUtUuZYKnAnx1wCpgERU Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LW1pbmVpLXBjZS1z?= =?gb2312?b?dGF0ZWZ1bC1zeW5jLW9wdGltaXphdGlvbnMgYXMgUENFIFdHIERvY3VtZW50?= =?gb2312?b?Pw==?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 22:32:57 -0000 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KLS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQq3orz+yMs6IFBjZSBbbWFpbHRvOnBjZS1i b3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIEp1bGllbiBNZXVyaWMNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoz1MI1 yNUgMjoxMg0KytW8/sjLOiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3zOI6IFtQY2VdIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRy YWZ0LW1pbmVpLXBjZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1zeW5jLW9wdGltaXphdGlvbnMgYXMgUENFIFdHIERvY3Vt ZW50Pw0KDQpEZWFyIFdHLA0KDQpBcyBkaXNjdXNzZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBQQ0UgV0cgbWVldGlu ZyB0b2RheSwgd2UgaGFkIHNvbWUgc3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtbWluZWktcGNl LXN0YXRlZnVsLXN5bmMtb3B0aW1pemF0aW9ucy0wMSBhcyBhIFBDRSBXRyBpdGVtLg0KDQpXb3Vs ZCB5b3UgYmUgaW4gZmF2b3Ivb3Bwb3NlZCAoYW5kIHdoeSBpZiB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBqdXN0aWZ5 KSBvZiBhZG9wdGluZyBpdCBhcyBhIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50Pw0KDQpUaGFua3MuDQoNCkpQIGFuZCBK dWxpZW4uDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQpQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpQY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21h aWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlDQo= From nobody Tue Mar 4 16:38:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE6E1A0090 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:38:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S7FID75LPPx0 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1DD1A0061 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEF84213; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:38:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:37:51 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.40) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:38:18 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.22]) by SZXEMA408-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:38:16 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prQuQ7Q Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:38:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/pjg4CnPMoxugKW-KLYXy7-APdSw Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:38:27 -0000 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNClhpYW4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0N CkZyb206IFBjZSBbbWFpbHRvOnBjZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgSlAg VmFzc2V1ciAoanZhc3NldXIpDQpTZW50OiAyMDE0xOoz1MI0yNUgMTc6NDgNClRvOiBwY2VAaWV0 Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFtQY2VdIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWxvcGV6LXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0w MiBhcyBQQ0UgV0cgRG9jdW1lbnQgPw0KDQpEZWFyIFdHLA0KDQpBcyBkaXNjdXNzZWQgZHVyaW5n IHRoZSBQQ0UgV0cgbWVldGluZyB0b2RheSB3aGVyZSB3ZSBoYWQgZ29vZCBzdXBwb3J0IGZvciBh ZG9wdGluZyBkcmFmdC1sb3Blei1wY2UtcGNlcHMtMDIgYXMgYSBXRyANCmRvY3VtZW50LCBhcyB1 c3VhbCwgd2Ugd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBjb25maXJtIG9uIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QuDQoNCldv dWxkIHlvdSBiZSBpbiBmYXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIChhbmQgd2h5IGlmIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGp1c3Rp ZnkpIG9mIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWxvcGV6LXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0wMiBhcyBhIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50 ID8NCg0KVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpKUCBhbmQgSnVsaWVuLg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNClBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0K aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wY2UNCg== From nobody Tue Mar 4 16:40:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74161A002F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:40:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bslf64573jUD for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1453C1A000A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:40:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEF84336; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:40:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:39:54 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.42) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:40:21 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.22]) by SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.42]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:40:14 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rRp6mQ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:40:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/T5udwg17hR9AY_mTF2OSprscmxk Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:40:28 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCAoYXMgY28tYXV0aG9yKS4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNClhpYW4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5h bCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IFBjZSBbbWFpbHRvOnBjZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBP biBCZWhhbGYgT2YgSlAgVmFzc2V1ciAoanZhc3NldXIpDQpTZW50OiAyMDE0xOoz1MI0yNUgMTg6 NTINClRvOiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFtQY2VdIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWFs aS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRpYXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0IGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1bWVu dCA/DQoNCkRlYXIgV0csDQoNCkFzIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIFBDRSBXRyBtZWV0aW5n IHRvZGF5IHdoZXJlIHdlIGhhZCBzb21lIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1w Y2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRpYXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0IA0KYXMgYSBQQ0UgV0cuDQoNCldv dWxkIHlvdSBiZSBpbiBmYXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIChhbmQgd2h5IGlmIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGp1c3Rp ZnkpIG9mIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRpYXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3At MDMudHh0IGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgPw0KDQpUaGFua3MuDQoNCkpQIGFuZCBKdWxpZW4uDQpf X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNlIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3Rp bmZvL3BjZQ0K From nobody Tue Mar 4 16:40:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89ABE1A002F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:40:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTyhba9t0P9s for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57AD1A000A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEF84350; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:40:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:40:10 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.34) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:40:40 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.22]) by SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:40:36 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9VbwMA9RDs3tUyaT3PimTmstprRp1Qw Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:40:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/rkM3T9uvoq7ZU_RZOwBivzrJreQ Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:40:46 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCBhcyBjby1hdXRob3IuDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsDQpYaWFuDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwg TWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBQY2UgW21haWx0bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24g QmVoYWxmIE9mIEp1bGllbiBNZXVyaWMNClNlbnQ6IDIwMTTE6jPUwjXI1SAyOjEyDQpUbzogcGNl QGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbUGNlXSBBZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1taW5laS1wY2Utc3Rh dGVmdWwtc3luYy1vcHRpbWl6YXRpb25zIGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1bWVudD8NCg0KRGVhciBXRywN Cg0KQXMgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgUENFIFdHIG1lZXRpbmcgdG9kYXksIHdlIGhhZCBz b21lIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LW1pbmVpLXBjZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1zeW5jLW9w dGltaXphdGlvbnMtMDEgYXMgYSBQQ0UgV0cgaXRlbS4NCg0KV291bGQgeW91IGJlIGluIGZhdm9y L29wcG9zZWQgKGFuZCB3aHkgaWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8ganVzdGlmeSkgb2YgYWRvcHRpbmcgaXQg YXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudD8NCg0KVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpKUCBhbmQgSnVsaWVuLg0KDQpfX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bj ZQ0K From nobody Tue Mar 4 17:00:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E861A00D9 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:00:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.925 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSr478F-1oNx for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498AA1A0097 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w61so362013wes.32 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:00:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=TLIPWLdCsWOzu+R+tCCZJaZ1PonAPoMEHjxLk84nmjI=; b=Q5qZkhKRrsjT/KTidjmZSWrUNn9xBVDn2ehrc3UP9AuoKdMbdPhTYIk7au6FY5yTOY ACg2FQopwZKimHd8IGplYrdWZLwAlUdFnOUFI3tokBpsG6YFyAYbRL6k6vSJukisfXgw ia7VuqmOYcmOasYMZZi+dMORUefWLqRBJXj+sLADnuH/y6kVMDsql3C7qAXvHo8Kuaqw q3kZ5BtgtyZye4q2phcACnJ/Rit39H200CnIMFx1GiJ18iiGa68n+m7hqnwza97YSrFe xlMdFzG/5451RMSSE+vnVoRTM5ipuc4fG5NHHRmrcn0jU9pOrZTAlZpfNwJVLSghZkmU 4S9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=TLIPWLdCsWOzu+R+tCCZJaZ1PonAPoMEHjxLk84nmjI=; b=IARAcyjAvuT5xTyFR+7ajnP5UP8atPJMXD2jwPf5RQRqZk7GtadN98nCRAtlRt4odE ePduHYXOMp6qQj0G45/uZMQITN6rUOKMgjmUB6Gd5CqN0dY31Wtv2T8b67g6zNmEZOjR 6L4//1bH1zZPbJDF7ddAIDx9zjNgTsCPB3aP7EFsDXjMbRAZb/D4IrJMnSl8UBoftOP+ r7BSZlPMEnMmsK/B1jg8t1ckvrmXTL+UiuidgaosX1tklaxcMb7O0EQjlEjiqu1tA9Bw CXJ1RfQgU4E0kE/N5s8ImAfpP//8Dm6rajAjtRMxC9oTGRgKdquKnbsz4zEoKfimS8Pk Jd3g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlsPKpv1hu6Mk0pVH6/AxDu3S1c7izRZxGjfjFLhtsn7Yzl5lOIEY0YEYPxEVsl7jqhrsmxS3uTQHtkYwx7GjvOpNxLOkRmWpwCPYRHkQGkbD/8ikvrVhkFRUC+vBaUMnFibkrvA6w6ptu8p3N83O8xfqD8QPSqme9evnAVXPjJ1OGQ9y/XyKNT8K+qqUkZSXhE58Hh X-Received: by 10.194.87.104 with SMTP id w8mr444987wjz.90.1393981242254; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:00:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.26.10 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:00:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> From: Edward Crabbe Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:00:00 +0000 Message-ID: To: Julien Meuric Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10a78c4c2f304f3d18cc5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/5irQKupEPVV-LOiMhrlkvOss6H8 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:00:48 -0000 --047d7bf10a78c4c2f304f3d18cc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Julien Meuric wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > it as a WG document? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --047d7bf10a78c4c2f304f3d18cc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Julien Meuric <jul= ien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:
Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopt= ing draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item.=

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = it as a WG document?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

--047d7bf10a78c4c2f304f3d18cc5-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 19:35:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC971A01D5 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:35:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4tEGxTunibk for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:35:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5531A01B6 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:35:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBT21730; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 03:35:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:35:09 +0000 Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:35:36 +0000 Received: from SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.210]) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.161]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:35:34 +0800 From: Avantika To: Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9VdkisJhfa8EUytrf5nOsuuDZrR2Dxw Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:35:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.152.79] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/qXJ9yGpObZ8T8enc1a5T4w_6ZpY Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 03:35:43 -0000 Support -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: 04 March 2014 23:42 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as P= CE WG Document? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopt= ing draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = it as a WG document? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Mar 4 19:37:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003421A01B6 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:37:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZOk1W40gxgB7 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:37:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D25F1A00A6 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:37:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393990629; x=1395200229; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NESkfWR17FfhpaySt1FzSyyNqJNBtZmzshKJ0WKmtoM=; b=SnEwt6H19Zj97aycQL0fcsaV1v1irXmdzhLs9oAVTg46GRfxhU4wItK8 KFZSzpXqEANTbNflqtmEsQNeb7JIv/TYCRqJsEYRxQdOMuIkcwU+xhtfq +T6iQyPPUJsBaKn65pSG8HPXaGPANkFm/LxMsIvvWrnTVPqHTkU+aqwGt s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAHObFlOtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V4MEvguBFhZ0giUBAQEEAQEBHgFMFwYBCBEEAQECAwsYAgMpCxQJCgQBEod5DZBenBIBoFkTBIEmjTiCZoFMBJg8kiuBb4E+gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,590,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="308128186" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 03:37:08 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s253b8lE032437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:37:08 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.248]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:37:08 -0600 From: "Jan Medved (jmedved)" To: "Zhangxian (Xian)" , "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPOCQuGtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1Aw== Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:37:07 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.61.108.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-ID: <7DE1015A45597C43B664FD1EDA8A12B3@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/18N3jTnXQaXEGr4dy9omTv7rxt0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 03:37:15 -0000 Support On 3/4/14, 4:40 PM, "Zhangxian (Xian)" wrote: >Support (as co-author). > >Regards, >Xian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) >Sent: 2014=1B$BG/=1B(B3=1B$B7n=1B(B4=1B$BF|=1B(B 18:52 >To: pce@ietf.org >Subject: [Pce] Adoption of >draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? > >Dear WG, > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support >for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt >as a PCE WG. > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document >? > >Thanks. > >JP and Julien. >_______________________________________________ >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 nobody Tue Mar 4 19:38:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C289D1A01FA for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:38:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2pPIozLRzTRh for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:38:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A401A01E6 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:38:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=902; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393990704; x=1395200304; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=d5Q6pwPNViyOw+OlelZb2n9VAvj18sV1NQCy8OmMh+M=; b=BZ2/pzTt4kd6OioyuUb6pCPz3WrRjgSjJPvvLpz6R8JWo2HbsvvKrD94 m8gyZRImZ+qffDWAR6D0t9+0PSF47uhlHx0iLBRRGwoN66++HfcYYei7e 0nKkr5+M2omUqFjHwAEpH3kb+I0FOts7NFUC4NQQ4CQK+sxmHuawoIWWa M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAOWaFlOtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8EPgRYWdIIlAQEBBAEBATc0FwQCAQgRBAEBHwkHJwsUCQgCBAESh3kNzUsTBI5YBoQyAQOYPJIrgW+BPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,590,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="24982222" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 03:38:24 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s253cOif031259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:38:24 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.248]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:38:24 -0600 From: "Jan Medved (jmedved)" To: Avantika , Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9VbXNMW+RdqREyXBPnd24Uu8prSPNeA//96sAA= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:38:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.61.108.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4F8C76BADD683044A1148CE4CAF51ADA@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/aaeP0VF8ASG04lp081PtmD5WOrk Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 03:38:30 -0000 Support On 3/4/14, 7:35 PM, "Avantika" wrote: >Support > >-----Original Message----- >From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric >Sent: 04 March 2014 23:42 >To: pce@ietf.org >Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as >PCE WG Document? > >Dear WG, > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for >adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >adopting it as a WG document? > >Thanks. > >JP and Julien. > >_______________________________________________ >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 nobody Tue Mar 4 21:42:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571A61A026F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:42:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eGBjdwKH_d-V for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:42:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tcb.net (mail.tcb.net [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32B61A0253 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:42:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.tcb.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7ECA6300083 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [130.129.22.22] (unknown [130.129.22.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 691E230007A; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:42:33 -0700 (MST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Shane Amante In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:31 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> To: Julien Meuric X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Tue Mar 4 22:42:35 2014 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 1.0000 X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 98689409 chance of being spam X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0023 X-DSPAM-Signature: 5316b94b42071352915050 X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, support+#+#+Mar, 0.40000, we+#+#+#+for, 0.40000, why+if, 0.40000, WG+#+#+during, 0.40000, favor+opposed, 0.40000, adopting+draft, 0.40000, orange+#+wrote, 0.40000, 2014+#+#+#+PM, 0.40000, support+#+#+#+4, 0.40000, 4+#+#+#+12, 0.40000, WG+meeting, 0.40000, Meuric+#+#+orange, 0.40000, support+#+On, 0.40000, Julien+#+julien, 0.40000, PM+Julien, 0.40000, 4+#+at, 0.40000, Mime-Version*OS+X, 0.40000, JP+#+#+Pce, 0.40000, discussed+#+#+PCE, 0.40000, 12+#+#+Meuric, 0.40000, 6+#+#+Julien, 0.40000, Subject*WG+Document, 0.40000, adopting+#+#+pce, 0.40000, meeting+#+#+#+some, 0.40000, support+#+#+draft, 0.40000, Subject*of+#+#+PCE, 0.40000, Cc*ietf.org+#+ietf.org, 0.40000 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QpiP7CfWwctv_bhqz6KDBdsgNA0 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:42:40 -0000 Yes/support. -shane On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Julien Meuric = wrote: > Dear WG, >=20 > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for = adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG = item. >=20 > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of = adopting it as a WG document? >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > JP and Julien. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >=20 From nobody Tue Mar 4 21:53:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CE21A026F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:53:07 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kwU__KUHZbtY for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915461A026A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id y20so628678ier.41 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 21:53:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9dOq02D8Lc7ebumYd65HOs51u1npS8nu5uI9mxUHsiI=; b=RN6ofmhHc8qSMeajHja5Yd4eG71/ad7koyPM+mw99Nu1D5gibRnR7cKkIMePEZwodx Z3bkTIKv78Zd0CO+wj0hELe1C/IPIYvDzMUvTU2unHadIAZcPez9y3RABxoCh96VYWOw STJzKEzmew6kRjzP8u+cHas9uLkX2Q9SkNi+htCVHdkGIA9JibAGhZcxZ/dL9S64V3sG 0WM5kr0ZB96yCaHkAXugdhjwsDgcS4Ssjz525ugM2pH+OOh+t453hDLycU2qhLhKUF26 Xj7Tjv9gDOef9B70DyWLBJDCj56vRY4Yqsbz1TODSMxm2BatY0FrV/XNKr185nuhEtgZ 6wrA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.154.3 with SMTP id vk3mr27467936igb.37.1393998782078; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 21:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.112.103 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.112.103 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:53:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:53:01 +0000 Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd76b9e39251404f3d5a2dd Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Ajgts4oosUUhHtyK7dEB49bSlUI Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:53:07 -0000 --047d7bd76b9e39251404f3d5a2dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support. On Mar 4, 2014 10:52 AM, "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for > adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --047d7bd76b9e39251404f3d5a2dd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

On Mar 4, 2014 10:52 AM, "JP Vasseur (jvass= eur)" <jvasseur@cisco.com= > wrote:
Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for = adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt
as a PCE WG.

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--047d7bd76b9e39251404f3d5a2dd-- From nobody Tue Mar 4 23:41:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21881A034A for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 23:41:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.403 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7vo5eQnleWn0 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 23:41:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from rudy.puc.rediris.es (rudy.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca01::132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FE91A0348 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 23:41:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by rudy.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WL6SQ-0007hu-KA for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:41:38 +0100 Received: from [31.133.160.241] (dhcp-a0f1.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.160.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CF291FDFD for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:41:35 +0100 (CET) X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:41:35 +0000 From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es To: pce@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Spamina-Bogosity: Ham Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/vMJCjcSA2xVkyY0dS7N7XYWVDFQ Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:41:45 -0000 WWVzLCBzdXBwb3J0CgpPbiBNYXIgNSwgMjAxNCA1OjUzIEFNLCBEaHJ1diBEaG9keSA8ZGhydXYu aWV0ZkBnbWFpbC5jb20+IHdyb3RlOgo+Cj4gU3VwcG9ydC4KPgo+IE9uIE1hciA0LCAyMDE0IDEw OjUyIEFNLCAiSlAgVmFzc2V1ciAoanZhc3NldXIpIiA8anZhc3NldXJAY2lzY28uY29tPiB3cm90 ZToKPj4KPj4gRGVhciBXRywKPj4KPj4gQXMgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgUENFIFdHIG1l ZXRpbmcgdG9kYXkgd2hlcmUgd2UgaGFkIHNvbWUgc3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQt YWxpLXBjZS1yZW1vdGUtaW5pdGlhdGVkLWdtcGxzLWxzcC0wMy50eHQKPj4gYXMgYSBQQ0UgV0cu Cj4+Cj4+IFdvdWxkIHlvdSBiZSBpbiBmYXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIChhbmQgd2h5IGlmIHlvdSB3YW50 IHRvIGp1c3RpZnkpIG9mIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRpYXRlZC1n bXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0IGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgPwo+Pgo+PiBUaGFua3MuCj4+Cj4+IEpQ IGFuZCBKdWxpZW4uCj4+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fCj4+IFBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKPj4gUGNlQGlldGYub3JnCj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3 LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlCg== From nobody Wed Mar 5 00:29:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686DC1A0354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:29:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZOQyA2JFZ95 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from tidos.tid.es (tidos.tid.es [195.235.93.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8357B1A023B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet [10.95.64.104]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1Y0004IFKGYU@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from dequeue_removeroute (tid.hi.inet [10.95.64.10]) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id C3.3C.03314.050E6135; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1Y0004CFKGYU@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS6-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:29:03 +0000 From: Victor Lopez In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "Zhangxian (Xian)" , "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: Content-id: <3A513BABE671F842A4F3320B9396FBA5@hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prQuQ7QgAFxvgA= user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7fe58e000000cf2-5d-5316e05048f4 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpjkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhinfg0g14IBZs8GiNqkXT/RvsDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK2PvrDFvBD4GKA38OMjUwHhDoYuTkkBAwkfg2dy8LhC0mceHe erYuRi4OIYEDjBJ9k16zgySEBL4ySry6wwqRmMYo0XnhBDNIgkVAVWJH21awIjYBJYkN2/aw gdjCAj4SU1/cBotzCkRILHn0lg1ig4LEn3OPwbaJCNRK3Nz3iRXE5hXQkmjcexkszixgJtG/ 4g0jRFxQ4sfke1BxDYn+RRvYIGxxiTm/JrJC2IoS0xY1gNUzCshKrDx/GsjmAJrvK/GzwQxi lZXEv3WtYGNEBfQk7j2aC/WwgMSSPeeZIWxRiZeP/0H92MEocejFc7YJjBKzkJw0C8lJs5Cc NAvJSbOQnLSAkXUVo1hxUlFmekZJbmJmTrqBoV5Gpl5mXmrJJkZI3GXsYFy+U+UQowAHoxIP r8YpkWAh1sSy4srcQ4wSHMxKIrxRq8WChXhTEiurUovy44tKc1KLDzEycXBKNTAuO/vXr61w rRr/+Qu8nVsL2de9f5A5cz/bl5TvHr/XX1hcdnZe938n22Nm3Pc1aqJWq18yCnnVbLv4RPjU 79v2CN+K5pmlVNiXsIpnKdNKA6ulp4v/T91ao7uOa8L101tXnc8/5qJ2p79WYArnDveyffey Q51mxHHpJ4smect82yRjpG4T815ZiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAwakI+JkCAAA= References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4-RVBA1GrZPfG0elPZUeafOitws Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:29:11 -0000 U3VwcG9ydA0KDQotLQ0KUmVnYXJkcywNCg0KVqiqY3RvciBMqK5wZXogKFBoLkQuKSAgICAgICBU ZWxlZqiubmljYSBJK0QsIEdsb2JhbCBDVE8gVW5pdA0KYy8gRG9uIFJhbaiubiBkZSBsYSBDcnV6 LCA4Mi04NC4gMjgwMDYsIE1hZHJpZCAoU3BhaW4pLg0KUGhvbmUuICszNDkxMzEyODg3Mg0KRW1h aWw6IHZsb3BlekB0aWQuZXMNCldlYjogaHR0cHM6Ly9wZW9wbGUudGlkLmVzL1ZpY3Rvci5Mb3Bl ei8NCg0KDQoNCg0KRWwgMDUvMDMvMTQgMDE6MzgsICJaaGFuZ3hpYW4gKFhpYW4pIiA8emhhbmcu eGlhbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tPiBlc2NyaWJpqK46DQoNCj5TdXBwb3J0Lg0KPg0KPlJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+ WGlhbg0KPg0KPi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+RnJvbTogUGNlIFttYWlsdG86 cGNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBKUCBWYXNzZXVyIChqdmFzc2V1cikN Cj5TZW50OiAyMDE0xOoz1MI0yNUgMTc6NDgNCj5UbzogcGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQo+U3ViamVjdDog W1BjZV0gQWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtbG9wZXotcGNlLXBjZXBzLTAyIGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1 bWVudCA/DQo+DQo+RGVhciBXRywNCj4NCj5BcyBkaXNjdXNzZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBQQ0UgV0cg bWVldGluZyB0b2RheSB3aGVyZSB3ZSBoYWQgZ29vZCBzdXBwb3J0DQo+Zm9yIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRy YWZ0LWxvcGV6LXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0wMiBhcyBhIFdHDQo+ZG9jdW1lbnQsIGFzIHVzdWFsLCB3ZSB3 b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGNvbmZpcm0gb24gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4NCj4NCj5Xb3VsZCB5b3Ug YmUgaW4gZmF2b3Ivb3Bwb3NlZCAoYW5kIHdoeSBpZiB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBqdXN0aWZ5KSBvZg0K PmFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWxvcGV6LXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0wMiBhcyBhIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50ID8NCj4N Cj5UaGFua3MuDQo+DQo+SlAgYW5kIEp1bGllbi4NCj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPlBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj5QY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Cj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0KPl9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+UGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0K PlBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNl DQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRXN0ZSBtZW5zYWplIHNl IGRpcmlnZSBleGNsdXNpdmFtZW50ZSBhIHN1IGRlc3RpbmF0YXJpby4gUHVlZGUgY29uc3VsdGFy IG51ZXN0cmEgcG9sqKp0aWNhIGRlIGVudqiqbyB5IHJlY2VwY2morm4gZGUgY29ycmVvIGVsZWN0 cqiubmljbyBlbiBlbCBlbmxhY2Ugc2l0dWFkbyBtqKJzIGFiYWpvLg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGlz IGludGVuZGVkIGV4Y2x1c2l2ZWx5IGZvciBpdHMgYWRkcmVzc2VlLiBXZSBvbmx5IHNlbmQgYW5k IHJlY2VpdmUgZW1haWwgb24gdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9mIHRoZSB0ZXJtcyBzZXQgb3V0IGF0Og0KaHR0 cDovL3d3dy50aWQuZXMvRVMvUEFHSU5BUy9kaXNjbGFpbWVyLmFzcHgNCg== From nobody Wed Mar 5 00:29:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB851A0364 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:29:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54XIRVXdcVT0 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from tidos.tid.es (tidos.tid.es [195.235.93.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80071A0354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:29:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet [10.95.64.104]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1Y0008TFL8YU@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from dequeue_removeroute (tid.hi.inet [10.95.64.10]) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id BA.3C.03314.C70E6135; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1Y000BHFLOYU@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS7-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:29:39 +0100 Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:29:39 +0000 From: Victor Lopez In-reply-to: <20140305074148.0F6DA1A0351@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "ramon.casellas@cttc.es" , "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: Content-id: <5DCE099683D4E14FB03159CF6629BC9F@hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-index: AQHPOEZVGtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rSKYmA user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7fe58e000000cf2-8a-5316e07c388f X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhinfg0q19IBZscHENi0XT/RvsDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKeLmtsGATT8XW/weYGxhXc3UxcnJICJhI7Pi5ihXCFpO4cG89 WxcjF4eQwAFGiVvPDjCBJIQEvjJKHJ1bAZGYxiix5lojO0iCRUBV4vbLuSwgNpuAksSGbXvY QGxhgVSJW737GEFsTgELiSdXPrBAbFCQ+HPuMZgtIhAmcf7sF7A5vAJaEo/er2UGsZkFzCQm fu1mg4gLSvyYfI8FIq4j0fv9G1SNuMScXxNZIWxtiSfvLoDZjAKyEivPn2aEmJ8mseP8JqD5 HEC2kcT226IgYVEBPYl7j+ZCnSMgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/rBD/mkvcb3nJPoFRYhaSi2YhuWgW kotmIbloFpKLFjCyrmIUK04qykzPKMlNzMxJNzDUy8jUy8xLLdnECIm5jB2My3eqHGIU4GBU 4uHVOCUSLMSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmEN2q1WLAQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGRsNeL8bT /zff5VD2T3dVt/9ozCWSvuPLnsesLz2Mov6wLJ+6beJcBQPvH7IlXYWyf5qyNi/JKWqVmyTZ +KezJOlg2+8au7IbTB61Vip7bms9VO4+L9516Nlf9ruGsR3qKVdfRz2ul2GVSenz3vZnl3yk 684bAvcECk4/PTjhx8WXi9d+1f/oocRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAMffplaXAgAA References: <20140305074148.0F6DA1A0351@ietfa.amsl.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/aJsyYtJK24spLcJ6bShGbgp7n3I Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:29:55 -0000 Support (as co-author) -- Regards, V=EDctor L=F3pez (Ph.D.) Telef=F3nica I+D, Global CTO Unit c/ Don Ram=F3n de la Cruz, 82-84. 28006, Madrid (Spain). Phone. +34913128872 Email: vlopez@tid.es Web: https://people.tid.es/Victor.Lopez/ El 05/03/14 08:41, "ramon.casellas@cttc.es" escribi=F3: >Yes, support > >On Mar 5, 2014 5:53 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> >> Support. >> >> On Mar 4, 2014 10:52 AM, "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" >>wrote: >>> >>> Dear WG, >>> >>> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support >>>for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt >>> as a PCE WG. >>> >>> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >>>adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG >>>document ? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> JP and Julien. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From nobody Wed Mar 5 01:28:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E851A0354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:28:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.925 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPtGAy0d-GVS for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB7B1A000D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u57so834814wes.8 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:27:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=BDqAELeLF1gna1ucrlw8eB+ZG8qz0t14QpizRq+a4bg=; b=nw9CMDFO9ZXTGUWDfCFxgDPUIjjY70NqF3NYiPQ9nvk5RIgkgKl4bQg1yZ8VpEzMRT 8MF0BR6Iw/2gQuwvYMzBME2R6zEVH6tktugoYBqKLpSsIkNEWWltslkc9ycWEHxziLhI 5UhPCsNlsXV4rFMnxRfyDCUhBSu3KGluNNNVR2Nr883KOKSiLdA6ay3BdAbh52l7lauu 46IuIH8f5T5VX8NCijRf06RHXZRNPeCECftA+SCWV8FO4ewIyxjZXjp3zX7fbAUtzBTF MGsd53wiu+E+Bv6j7DwCX/U5eozRKOQO7MWiwWJD3nlcqh3aRAiMPZzxchh/i0aAV2u6 zhdQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=BDqAELeLF1gna1ucrlw8eB+ZG8qz0t14QpizRq+a4bg=; b=kN3PwcqbsuSBGbkfrK49giak9SAwfAoPTV+gspF7GTYyrJ2cUBV7xh+DRT2c497q61 YhRg9W2wV2AZauKc0JawA1xI3I8vTme9QCsj/qipqlkwi0yBmGfoXqrwHS7tQcioRlNt fuTMhBqCTSnGZnWXCGPDqsi6bRrmh7h2QPCNxszWNXfa66xeTgFzrUh3szoEqGGONEDw 6d0mfxKKMx3nNk0h4XXPsTlTXT87Ng2VPyXbyGePJzlkPUDYiNvv69cq35RSaCMFHeSB OKBthiTcyzUSPh2EIiS/TvRa/kSmsTDRzxngYtp1Txn0ajTq/J/wVnIHHoP6rt7+UvyI nQ2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAeS31+HeBSUWc4ieHczqIqzXk66OGxEQJzJZd+FQmhDBDFGqcQqt5vUv7CssmBT9h4dpDZcsIlV3Uwrn3h+8p7NZtwONiI6Eq2tNuz9TaUxHgxEqc7ZT7FLyFw8Mak7jKMn8dVprQuE1fZOnQM4R2BLVR2YcVfDeNvqgdcE8qws4RvJmPMP8Jw9tKY/SECoUvrBL0 X-Received: by 10.194.87.104 with SMTP id w8mr1844368wjz.90.1394011674645; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:27:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.26.10 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> From: Edward Crabbe Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:27:14 +0000 Message-ID: To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10a78ae395304f3d8a2b8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/zGVJKlZorI90ptR__7Q7iDYE6IA Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:28:12 -0000 --047d7bf10a78ae395304f3d8a2b8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for > adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --047d7bf10a78ae395304f3d8a2b8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support.


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for = adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt
as a PCE WG.

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

--047d7bf10a78ae395304f3d8a2b8-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 01:39:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2175A1A000D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:39:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Yr9XMQ0QfP2 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:39:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24D91A02B8 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:39:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=862; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394012389; x=1395221989; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+LkATjKsS5Mb8WXOwMGYzshLFBKd0ukhRMs2KA6MBHI=; b=PR5vAzmRgajHq9KHjGsxkjG5tltcdKWrXSqe/cTZCwWFggodIsW5ZhTk jkJaTCSlYOVOkrW0lICE9OM6f8hzYpEUzp8QkItj04utMhbS+IdVK9jH3 EFpeLouHVwCzxChrbdB+tE+l9wo1cufXydzhqnFo1n5pU/Rd3WoiW+kLx s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFANLvFlOtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8ELgRgWdIInAQQBAQE3DyUZBAEINisMCyUCBAESh3kNzVsXBI5UhDgEmD2SK4FvgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,591,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="308177195" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 09:39:49 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s259dmBd015664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:39:48 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.247]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:39:48 -0600 From: "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPOFbYGtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1Aw== Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:39:47 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [10.61.104.211] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4B4E9CE034C5534388B6B8AD8F934827@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/q7eZGF_-YOZvR2-JH8PYiqSc6-g Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:39:55 -0000 I support Gabriele Galimberti Technical Leader Cisco Photonics Srl Via Philips, 12 20900 - Monza (MI) Italy www.cisco.com/global/IT/ ggalimbe@cisco.com Phone :+39 039 2091462 Mobile :+39 335 7481947 Fax :+39 039 2092049 On 3/4/14 11:51 AM, "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" wrote: >Dear WG, > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support >for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt >as a PCE WG. > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document >? > >Thanks. > >JP and Julien. >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 02:53:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07631A03EC for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 02:53:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvhRzDm4v2B7 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 02:53:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1341A03DD for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 02:53:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1Y00J1OM9HUR@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:53:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 0A.BF.05896.53207135; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:53:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0N1Y00J1LM9HUR@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:53:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS5-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:53:41 +0100 Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:53:39 +0000 From: "Diego R. Lopez" In-reply-to: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: Content-id: <166A6C722A8CF143962D82B51DB77A08@hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: en-US, es-ES Thread-topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rSQmGA X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f778e000001708-d1-53170235c54f X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqGvKJB5s8OiisUXT/RvsDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK2H56OUvBI56KP5v2MDYw7uDpYuTkkBAwkWi//ZUdwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkMA2Ron3B6+yQDjfGCVWLf/LDuFMY5T4evwnC0gLi4CqxOFVP1hBbDYg+1Hzb7BR wgKpErd69zF2MXJwcArYSpy7LA2xQUHiz7nHYK0iAooS32+sZgOxeQUsJfqXLmUGsZkFzCR2 nF3JDhEXlPgx+R4LyBhmAXWJKVNyIUrEJZpbb7JA2IoS0xY1MILYjAKyEu/mz2eFGJ8mseP8 JnYI20ji8MUWZogTBCSW7DkPZYtKvHz8jxVkvJCAjcTCbaYTGMVnITliFpIjZiEcMQvJEbOQ HLGAkXUVo1hxUlFmekZJbmJmTrqBkV5Gpl5mXmrJJkZIZGXuYFy+U+UQowAHoxIPr8YpkWAh 1sSy4srcQ4wSHMxKIrwpL8SChXhTEiurUovy44tKc1KLDzEycXBKNTDqWbzT+3CQu2zT5phr j6T/792TttzmwZws/+n/JnJGuXW8TmXbqFjI9T8x1TW56bpmt7HrVF63ZAk5q4W3X+7622Gx qvDOsb+bso+5s4TfWlbc09ARlstkdL2osDDKUDBr1tozjy65Ca5mzNr7WOvRnMrHubcqlFN6 Lp/g+MIge3P/hDd6E1SVWIozEg21mIuKEwG0U5yOigIAAA== References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/BRQXUM8KVf9wjAwWZQAvtOZb31o Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:53:49 -0000 U3VwcG9ydA0KDQpPbiA0IE1hciAyMDE0LCBhdCAxMDo1MSAsIEpQIFZhc3NldXIgKGp2YXNzZXVy KSA8anZhc3NldXJAY2lzY28uY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBEZWFyIFdHLA0KPg0KPiBBcyBkaXNj dXNzZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBQQ0UgV0cgbWVldGluZyB0b2RheSB3aGVyZSB3ZSBoYWQgc29tZSBz dXBwb3J0IGZvciBhZG9wdGluZyBkcmFmdC1hbGktcGNlLXJlbW90ZS1pbml0aWF0ZWQtZ21wbHMt bHNwLTAzLnR4dA0KPiBhcyBhIFBDRSBXRy4NCj4NCj4gV291bGQgeW91IGJlIGluIGZhdm9yL29w cG9zZWQgKGFuZCB3aHkgaWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8ganVzdGlmeSkgb2YgYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQt YWxpLXBjZS1yZW1vdGUtaW5pdGlhdGVkLWdtcGxzLWxzcC0wMy50eHQgYXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1bWVu dCA/DQo+DQo+IFRoYW5rcy4NCj4NCj4gSlAgYW5kIEp1bGllbi4NCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBQ Y2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wY2UN Cg0KDQotLQ0KIkVzdGEgdmV6IG5vIGZhbGxhcmVtb3MsIERvY3RvciBJbmZpZXJubyINCg0KRHIg RGllZ28gUi4gTG9wZXoNClRlbGVmb25pY2EgSStEDQpodHRwOi8vcGVvcGxlLnRpZC5lcy9kaWVn by5sb3Blei8NCg0KZS1tYWlsOiBkaWVnb0B0aWQuZXMNClRlbDogICAgKzM0IDkxMyAxMjkgMDQx DQpNb2JpbGU6ICszNCA2ODIgMDUxIDA5MQ0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KDQpFc3Rl IG1lbnNhamUgc2UgZGlyaWdlIGV4Y2x1c2l2YW1lbnRlIGEgc3UgZGVzdGluYXRhcmlvLiBQdWVk ZSBjb25zdWx0YXIgbnVlc3RyYSBwb2zDrXRpY2EgZGUgZW52w61vIHkgcmVjZXBjacOzbiBkZSBj b3JyZW8gZWxlY3Ryw7NuaWNvIGVuIGVsIGVubGFjZSBzaXR1YWRvIG3DoXMgYWJham8uDQpUaGlz IG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgZXhjbHVzaXZlbHkgZm9yIGl0cyBhZGRyZXNzZWUuIFdlIG9u bHkgc2VuZCBhbmQgcmVjZWl2ZSBlbWFpbCBvbiB0aGUgYmFzaXMgb2YgdGhlIHRlcm1zIHNldCBv dXQgYXQ6DQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRpZC5lcy9FUy9QQUdJTkFTL2Rpc2NsYWltZXIuYXNweA0K From nobody Wed Mar 5 02:59:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47DE1A0404 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 02:59:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k63qqSTVvw3Y for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 02:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD8C1A041C for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 02:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N1Y0041TMIZZE@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:59:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 71.EF.05896.A8307135; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:59:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0N1Y0041PMIYZE@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:59:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS8-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::41c8:e965:8a6:de67%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:59:21 +0100 Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:59:21 +0000 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= In-reply-to: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Message-id: <201DCD43-A423-4BD4-B8B6-59DD7F2CAE1C@tid.es> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-index: AQHPOGH27u1xE6v6cESJSE+a8QnvwA== X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f778e000001708-b9-5317038a8cd7 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqNvNLB5s0LyY1aLp/g12B0aPJUt+ MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBl7Nz3gbFgFUfF3I23mRsYH7F1MXJySAiYSLTumc4EYYtJXLi3 HijOxSEksI1RYt35PawQzjdGiXe3HrKAVAkJbGCUaD5ZAmKzCKhKXDi6nxHEZhNwkFi3qBds qrBAqsSt3n1AcQ4OTgFbiXOXpUHCIgIGEq1Xp7GChJkFFCXe3eYFCfMKWEoc/bufDcIWlPgx +R7YJmYBHYne79+YIWxxiTm/JrJC2NoST95dALMZBWQlVp4/zQgxPk1ix/lN7BC2nsS7hY+h fhSQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/sBOEBGwkFm4zncAoNgvJ5llINs9CsnkWks0LGFlWMYoVJxVlpmeU 5CZm5qQbGOllZOpl5qWWbGKERErmDsblO1UOMQpwMCrx8GqcEgkWYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMKb 8kIsWIg3JbGyKrUoP76oNCe1+BAjEwenVANjEbPh7yLt/e4zWk8YvtzisylYd7a53Dyn85Wi Pms3fv0ulbSQ40xxpNlRBg4O701WuVEC96QKzTZ9adDffbT4mGvwy13P3B4Ju6/+/f+D3/kl W8sa27I6XJgSjnq0fNi245a+6CTV3Akr7N13PJrKcD/gih6H1zoZ3v3/49Y3cc4pi231UXBT YinOSDTUYi4qTgQAKbRql3ICAAA= References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Q0ShM3rkTjEHqO_RSDsb2Uytn4c Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:59:32 -0000 Support (as coauthor) Best Regards, Oscar Enviado desde mi iPad > El 04/03/2014, a las 10:52, "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" = escribi=F3: > > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support fo= r adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adoptin= g draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From nobody Wed Mar 5 03:19:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565301A048D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:19:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SK=1.35, HOST_EQ_SK=0.555, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vdq7vgdjRn3U for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:19:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk (amalka.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8E11A0250 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:19:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137DF21A8F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:02 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk Authentication-Results: amalka.pantheon.sk (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pantheon.sk Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (amalka.pantheon.sk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMWWXFqElWYQ for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:18:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (cipisek.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.176]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:18:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26ABD8B131 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:18:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id EYhr2HcpZixG for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:18:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B67C8AF40 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:18:55 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.7.1 cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local 6B67C8AF40 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pantheon.sk; s=D7204E10-2735-11E2-9595-0BDFE9028503; t=1394018335; bh=IblXKjW/WJR+KWsDURHfHGkCb3ZFTNpMrfuQvNrmAG4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=tJa3qRcPc0+G7+fjz3d4jW88+G8B9mCDQUvrmAv4knHqYBdclqGaeLIxyljNNDb2F UG744bpMub5+cWMMFwu43CqS4MgfRAtMMYfFFP7zlGyBHfUhua8JM3tFDUydNKFqZ2 xwIGp3d2XJNjq0p5+5+MacRfc4VDPdPSz4Bkt5S4= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id GJTPGeccQAr0 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:18:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [31.133.182.240] (dhcp-b6f0.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.182.240]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 221488B5A7 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:18:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <53170812.6010207@pantheon.sk> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:18:42 +0100 From: Robert Varga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/14n47DvtxrY37rcQz_2HIyXIiDQ Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:19:08 -0000 Support (as a co-author). On 03/04/2014 07:12 PM, Julien Meuric wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of > adopting it as a WG document? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 03:20:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C900E1A04A2 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:20:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HELO_EQ_SK=1.35, HOST_EQ_SK=0.555, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xXoORZU-ohri for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk (amalka.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1221A048D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31F821A8F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:55 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk Authentication-Results: amalka.pantheon.sk (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: unsupported version)" header.d=pantheon.sk Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (amalka.pantheon.sk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GfZUGrvi2wks for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (cipisek.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.176]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4DB8B495 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id nEJ45HizhI5c for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336438B018 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:49 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.7.1 cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local 336438B018 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pantheon.sk; s=D7204E10-2735-11E2-9595-0BDFE9028503; t=1394018389; bh=wJ3JtxIou98yIo4vHLy2aQDdcVZ//4a7i++p6DuE6C4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Ga4oRFd/6orehcewSDEsxIt1I71iDiDpsyvXhyWQ8NWQ7NxlJTe7rKSmGehe8FPiq 16ORmx4LehJcXhdNN2r19J3ZmQ0HCtjqMMgYMM4jv0XNJT1Qs4aCKoeyHHMiLl/Q1Y C9/3r/bPGlxwxRbZAZ/HeafhpIU3XTEGy1UisbHU= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id d7dYxIgli5xi for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from [31.133.182.240] (dhcp-b6f0.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.182.240]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E16CF8B495 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:19:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <53170849.6040804@pantheon.sk> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:19:37 +0100 From: Robert Varga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/FWKCO5dcR2Mt1v-jayI7h1-2mfg Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:20:01 -0000 Support. On 03/04/2014 10:47 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG > document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 03:23:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382041A04E9 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:23:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SK=1.35, HOST_EQ_SK=0.555, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVb0_CTY3raW for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk (amalka.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EB91A048D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4648E22712 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:24 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk Authentication-Results: amalka.pantheon.sk (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pantheon.sk Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (amalka.pantheon.sk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODjlsJstGezg for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (cipisek.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.176]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8CC8B45C for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id W0wrmLliOZlR for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B7510EAAF for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:16 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.7.1 cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local A0B7510EAAF DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pantheon.sk; s=D7204E10-2735-11E2-9595-0BDFE9028503; t=1394018596; bh=S8JrtwVrire0yVfTLGb592U+cA2PkA+kxKtaEQc1GzQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=t1yi79DheW0prv2PB53QnhdLPiGm9GXiLElN21N/U3MxRJCuWr9o2PkxH5CZDPlln ZlKTjFrcTodvxq3R8mnOfR9G74bCwzSoPnKLECw+id7vEAhLnzzc9VWdWM0TikC1zp REmNgYwbbhPKJZ04dqILRJ+t4BlHmv/uyWnzdjxo= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id POss3OPGrad2 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from [31.133.182.240] (dhcp-b6f0.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.182.240]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3FB6F7E83 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:23:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <53170917.3060206@pantheon.sk> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:23:03 +0100 From: Robert Varga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/oisSQ5KQT0iQQnqpATXYdY_hmcc Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:23:29 -0000 Support (as a co-author). On 03/04/2014 11:51 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:05:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B3A1A00AA for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WIdhsnfGh3uL for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CC91A0121 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBT69518; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:05:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:04:49 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.50) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:05:18 +0000 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.30]) by dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.118]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:08 -0800 From: Leeyoung To: Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9VgmBdj/fwv1k2Iz6xKCeSJEZrSd1sQ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:05:07 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC8AC5@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.136.203] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/SsYcji5R7skPXRgq8_Jbo_p7naE Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:05:25 -0000 Support. Young -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:12 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as P= CE WG Document? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopt= ing draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = it as a WG document? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:05:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A5A1A02AD for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhJBYqJuqMcH for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366CD1A00AA for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEG43480; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:05:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:05:02 +0000 Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:05:30 +0000 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.30]) by dfweml702-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:05:21 -0800 From: Leeyoung To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prSd/qw Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:05:20 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC8ACC@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.136.203] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/IlSvhqVh_MwOWZPMQOkmOENeRTo Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:05:38 -0000 Support. Young -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:48 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for = adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we would like= to confirm on the mailing list. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:12:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483DF1A00A2 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:12:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w4ZtBAe_Hxho for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF7B1A006B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.109] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 910BE18015D3 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:12:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <531722A9.1020104@pi.nu> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:12:09 +0100 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/58QLUP88PBTlbbjALts3dSqJyvo Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:12:13 -0000 Working Group, I support the adaoption of this document since it addresses a real problem and provide a very good starting point for solving this problem. The document is not entirely clear when it comes to defining "GMPLS LSP", I assume that a GMPLS LSP includes LSPs whith one of the switching types listed in the IANA registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml#gmpls-sig-parameters-3 /Loa On 2014-03-04 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:27:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094151A002A for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:09 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ar9TGqyD35I7 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com (mail-we0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AF71A006B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q58so1175334wes.34 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:27:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=e7zVLZESxmI2/RCarFF7gRW3H5yN3p0Ux29PB9yVNVU=; b=u+IhOSEUyeYhXc+FsaiDHwzdhgjA/U8XzHRG2xxBP5y6x4XyM1WuUmWeLw0Mtn9DGl fngiBTopD0sBUP0tM/wwymxLvjoHn8YqMnBtTUqATaWk/LMhaSO6x/BlNYuLbiWv2kl1 c1lcQiLmUdNODLRH1MUkpf0MKIRvn87L8Ya4ni/khpgSnr3IiMRgD/fAC8Ki8KKHd4se cpdzbHPbdktok/qRP3KRo5Jx/Sa5ZBpgSxslpEF0AvPuWb9YT6/Sf5XQxLXEkxsN2sDV UKc6bo/+1EnImkD1vNkvRrAoSw1vezDucAedHuu9fLwkZh5cI/KbB2Uck55ZkPce2L3l BuVg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.85.168 with SMTP id i8mr697494wjz.81.1394026022563; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.61.12 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC8ACC@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC8ACC@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:27:02 +0100 Message-ID: From: Cyril Margaria To: Leeyoung Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d7efce1f60a04f3dbf9b9 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3aSlEv8nzhSoo6V2ZdgLMc6PO44 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:27:09 -0000 --089e010d7efce1f60a04f3dbf9b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 support On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung wrote: > Support. > > Young > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:48 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? > > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for > adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we would like > to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > --089e010d7efce1f60a04f3dbf9b9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
support



On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> wrote:
Support.

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:48 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ?

Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list.

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.
_______________________________________________
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

--089e010d7efce1f60a04f3dbf9b9-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:27:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490141A0072 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:47 -0800 (PST) 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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8VwmOCnPxB86 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1039A1A002A for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id b13so1218153wgh.32 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:27:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=En/LEe5ZATvLsNfreJf4lySWdKlh29RBOxtEO4u2DeU=; b=WPt5lChYCco5HdX6d+1rI/CM1/kIQhFEQg8S0iifeoERJvHnUfgDB7JqO6iWS7IosC sLrSQ6bA5OAHd055vMiFuRzd/N80DeSTIDUx6nUAspLnhPJPLf3whHc8bTfva6NS7YPG xpaKLqOikf0McEioii6/Edr2uyP8VJ6tnkPCXhJ1B1/FxpuNY4GGz0bPHLS8bkbxwZ0C pJq3SuE91g4pvEgM5Qdu5r2S+RgoGOULbaIns+6UouwqGTyCPm6aUde1ZiihMqmdlt/X Q+k/TRzImpvIMGCTgXUKY/NxfMwfK7q9alhxV0d3wmNBlcGcj8EAYpoVdzdGgku5rTdi TOUw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.84.144 with SMTP id z16mr839841wjy.23.1394026061094; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:27:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.61.12 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:27:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC8AC5@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BC8AC5@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:27:41 +0100 Message-ID: From: Cyril Margaria To: Leeyoung Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0102ddae2e27f804f3dbfcd8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/5cIL2-OJ-rtjbqeYDltzYHRk984 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:27:47 -0000 --089e0102ddae2e27f804f3dbfcd8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung wrote: > Support. > > Young > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:12 PM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as > PCE WG Document? > > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > it as a WG document? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > --089e0102ddae2e27f804f3dbfcd8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Support


On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> wrote:
Support.

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:12 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document?

Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item.

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting it as a WG document?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

_______________________________________________
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

--089e0102ddae2e27f804f3dbfcd8-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:28:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2401A010E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:28:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.501 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-OMsipGsHFt for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775121A00BE for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q58so1183489wes.40 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:28:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gasrUDpnsgsgO4yKLNw2VyKL8l7fIFh4opf2wt69xIQ=; b=Jlc8Kh7t5QVHfV3N5FaNMkme77jha5zLRgneFuBBbEes2FO7WDnBGiEK//DVd/KmFA HIuOKXesvbvKxzFiAN5cIwSIX79E2eqGZjTecklPbFtwVRCcPri2CiOTtkAuo02k/A2d nrnrtluLBLWb3qnTJGDSEysNVSAUDnirxcl0s6tsH5S6rCOv5YsEVmpgEqJYDVeC92Xe 6viWp9KkjYNOf5bm/34JLdZ/T/KfUmTv2tiEsxzpw/zOhDyKd0ZPwUeQQ8u89flPh3iU s7YGSPPpbbI22secPwaEnav/scIh+9tzGVWrhiU1ZGS4O1sra+DuX6w89xiXT5Xh8Xtq jtTQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.78.16 with SMTP id x16mr926248wjw.86.1394026090494; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.61.12 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:28:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:28:10 +0100 Message-ID: From: Cyril Margaria To: Qin Wu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0cf4aee7e0704f3dbfd68 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uPEdPfts0f1_ZXIGHluF1F7UHDE Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogQWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtYWxpLXBjZS1yZW1v?= =?gb2312?b?dGUtaW5pdGlhdGVkLWdtcGxzLWxzcC0wMy50eHQgYXMgUENFIFdHIERvY3Vt?= =?gb2312?b?ZW50ID8=?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:28:16 -0000 --047d7bf0cf4aee7e0704f3dbfd68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support On 4 March 2014 23:30, Qin Wu wrote: > Support. > > -----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6----- > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3= =E8=A1=A8 Zafar Ali (zali) > =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2014=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=884=E6=97=A5 2= 2:22 > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); pce@ietf.org > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-= gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as PCE WG Document ? > > Hi- > > Support (as a co-author). > > Thanks > > Regards =C5=A0 Zafar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" > Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 5:51 AM > To: "pce@ietf.org" > Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.tx= t > as PCE WG Document ? > > >Dear WG, > > > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support > >for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > >as a PCE WG. > > > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of > >adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG > >document ? > > > >Thanks. > > > >JP and Julien. > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > --047d7bf0cf4aee7e0704f3dbfd68 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support


On 4 March 2014 23:30, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
Support.

-----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6-----
=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8=A1=A8 Zafar Ali (zali)
=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2014=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=884=E6=97=A5 22:= 22
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); pce@ietf.org
=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gm= pls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ?

Hi-

Support (as a co-author).

Thanks

Regards =C5=A0 Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: "JP Vasseur =C2=A0 (jvasseur)" <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 5:51 AM
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt<= br> as PCE WG Document ?

>Dear WG,
>
>As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support<= br> >for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt
>as a PCE WG.
>
>Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of
>adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG
>document ?
>
>Thanks.
>
>JP and Julien.
>_______________________________________________
>Pce mailing list
>Pce@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

--047d7bf0cf4aee7e0704f3dbfd68-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:31:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044EF1A00BE for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:31:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wyGvyW635VZC for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:31:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33ED41A002A for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:31:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1913; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394026292; x=1395235892; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Ep2Nw/J9AI78RElxhOVNzgBNZDh3xA3hV/tYQIFtBLA=; b=TLSTMiWinxEwLXnjjH8/VFhjZDJfNi2dEQMUbQQRSd6tThAX5GvLh0sY hNqYZf7S2yeRHQeZnvhQZ9+zL+pt5ddOtvl+SpJRLgxpKelp6FiReg+oY I+d1njpPt3uPdKbHx4yGkxowQ5DiO4G2foBiI9LawuMzcqsz/MmjZEgjo w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFADAmF1OtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8ELgRYWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWgDFwIEAQgRAwECAUkMCx0IAgQBEgmHcA3NaRcEjWsRAVcGhDIEmD2SK4FvgT6BcTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,593,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="25087041" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 13:31:31 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s25DVVs7003352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:31:31 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.171]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:31:31 -0600 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: Loa Andersson , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rS3myAgAAGWIA= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:31:30 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <531722A9.1020104@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.82.244.253] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <70CFAAF6C760494981A5A441361644F1@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/duhX-sbxlaGRF4ubmKAumgSRof0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:31:38 -0000 Hi Loa: Thanks for the support. Yes, it fills in support for "G"-mpls gaps in draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp, including LSPs for switching types listed by you. Section 2 of the document list along these lines but we can more clarity in future version. Thanks Regards =8A Zafar -----Original Message----- From: Loa Andersson Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 8:12 AM To: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? > >Working Group, > >I support the adaoption of this document since it addresses a real >problem and provide a very good starting point for solving this problem. > >The document is not entirely clear when it comes to defining "GMPLS >LSP", I assume that a GMPLS LSP includes LSPs whith one of the >switching types listed in the IANA registry: > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters. >xhtml#gmpls-sig-parameters-3 >/Loa > > > >On 2014-03-04 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: >> Dear WG, >> >> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support >>for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt >> as a PCE WG. >> >> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >>adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG >>document ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP and Julien. >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > >--=20 > > >Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:34:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E841A0122 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:34:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3l2PYZtAjo5o for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:34:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ENFIRHETS1.metaswitch.com (enfirhets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF08D1A011B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.74.36) by ENFIRHETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.209.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:34:21 +0000 Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::b06d:4d13:5f63:3715%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:34:21 +0000 From: Jonathan Hardwick To: Julien Meuric Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9ZqWYbGKF5RF0OvFfMeV+b5EJrSf3yg Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:34:20 +0000 Message-ID: <09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBAE135BCA4@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.34.158] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/DyuHeJu6d0PaasTeWo9sF3_quEU Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:34:30 -0000 Support. -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: 04 March 2014 18:12 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as P= CE WG Document? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopt= ing draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = it as a WG document? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:35:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B521A0041 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:35:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CEUuciL8v9np for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:35:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BC21A002A for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:35:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6360; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394026497; x=1395236097; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nFY7V+GaVnSaPdCXRUIHpQtAE8H/a9Y26Dv5jqcy+fE=; b=aLEosmQQsBuLi21J187Oq+jsEcxl85q+QQ7PvvPlMuEpmdAxfG7htWC7 3Mm+oUqvZxXIxFk+UnSD0ufe2jkJ04GvQ3FqZO0NRgYMHQX4a04wcRvqm EIlyjdb+X28dn52eLyKPgLWGINXv+LlldG0FSq69rIjcL59HE9IMUDxkL s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAF8nF1OtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8A8T4EWFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNzEDEAcCBAEIEQMBAQEBChQJIgYGCxQJCQEEEwgBh1wDCQgNngGoaA2GdhcEjDiBMxACARwCBi0Lgx6BFASWUI5QhUiBb4E+gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,593,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="25080642" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 13:34:56 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s25DYu1K006434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:34:56 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([169.254.3.113]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:34:56 -0600 From: "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document Thread-Index: Ac84d7C0jKp0xIAxSguWueeH2CdlSg== Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:34:55 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.251.19] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/u5e6-xmj8ArUl9WIemCXACdNjzI Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:35:02 -0000 Support (co-author). On 2014-03-04 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support=20 > for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adoptin= g draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --=20 Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:27:02 +0100 From: Cyril Margaria To: Leeyoung Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" support On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung wrote: > Support. > > Young > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur=20 > (jvasseur) > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:48 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? > > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support=20 > for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document, as usual, we=20 > would like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of=20 > adopting > draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:27:41 +0100 From: Cyril Margaria To: Leeyoung Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Support On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung wrote: > Support. > > Young > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:12 PM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations=20 > as PCE WG Document? > > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for=20 > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of=20 > adopting it as a WG document? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:28:10 +0100 From: Cyril Margaria To: Qin Wu Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] ??: Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" Support On 4 March 2014 23:30, Qin Wu wrote: > Support. > > -----????----- > ???: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] ?? Zafar Ali (zali) > ????: 2014?3?4? 22:22 > ???: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); pce@ietf.org > ??: Re: [Pce] Adoption of=20 > draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as PCE WG Document ? > > Hi- > > Support (as a co-author). > > Thanks > > Regards ? Zafar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" > Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 5:51 AM > To: "pce@ietf.org" > Subject: [Pce] Adoption of=20 > draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as PCE WG Document ? > > >Dear WG, > > > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some=20 > >support for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > >as a PCE WG. > > > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of=20 > >adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG=20 > >document ? > > > >Thanks. > > > >JP and Julien. > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ------------------------------ End of Pce Digest, Vol 114, Issue 13 ************************************ From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:41:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FA21A03D8 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:41:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46kGaHeeXclO for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:41:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.orange.com (p-mail1.rd.orange.com [195.101.245.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE841A01BA for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:41:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 861F44103E5; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:41:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F38E4103AE; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:41:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:41:17 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.11] ([10.193.71.11]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:41:17 +0100 Message-ID: <5317297C.5050804@orange.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:41:16 +0100 From: Olivier Dugeon Organization: Orange Labs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2014 13:41:17.0036 (UTC) FILETIME=[955FFAC0:01CF3878] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ufECBjxt7ErfWF6y0rvVSZcZ0bk Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:41:23 -0000 support Le 04/03/2014 10:47, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) a =E9crit : > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support = for adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG > document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopt= ing draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:42:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43FA1A0080 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ctcP3o2waFkQ for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (r-mail1.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F60B1A0070 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 38E15DE4008 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:43:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3115DDE4001 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:43:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:42:07 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.11] ([10.193.71.11]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:42:07 +0100 Message-ID: <531729AE.6020203@orange.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:42:06 +0100 From: Olivier Dugeon Organization: Orange Labs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2014 13:42:07.0194 (UTC) FILETIME=[B3457BA0:01CF3878] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/b5ox_KfL26JScrrKlOD-2Odm0n0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:42:13 -0000 support Le 04/03/2014 19:12, Julien Meuric a =E9crit : > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for=20 > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG ite= m. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of=20 > adopting it as a WG document? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:42:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A631A017C for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNWIKeNaSGKP for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF421A0171 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:42:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E6B4E5D89A8; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:42:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE135D89A6; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:42:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:42:25 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.11] ([10.193.71.11]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:42:24 +0100 Message-ID: <531729C0.1050304@orange.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:42:24 +0100 From: Olivier Dugeon Organization: Orange Labs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2014 13:42:24.0460 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD9010C0:01CF3878] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/JqZw9djkMyf4dYbLBnUcQd1v5wQ Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:42:30 -0000 support Le 04/03/2014 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) a =E9crit : > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support = for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopt= ing draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:53:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B574A1A0143 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:52:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.447 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tsJsl1NnmFQc for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (enficsets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7D21A0136 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.74.36) by ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.4.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:52:45 +0000 Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::b06d:4d13:5f63:3715%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:52:51 +0000 From: Jonathan Hardwick To: Ramon Casellas , Dhruv Dhody Thread-Topic: [Pce] Question on new IRO type Thread-Index: AQHPN4zA4WGmStPUmES8Nko/WkepgJrQqzEAgAHOTAA= Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:52:51 +0000 Message-ID: <09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBAE135BD53@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> References: <53159DB7.40807@cttc.es> <53159E7E.1060303@cttc.es> In-Reply-To: <53159E7E.1060303@cttc.es> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.34.158] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBAE135BD53ENFICSMBX1datco_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/gDB3pP-JWCz5ON7GlcFQeE01XTY Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Question on new IRO type X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:52:57 -0000 --_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBAE135BD53ENFICSMBX1datco_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UmFtb24sIERocnV2LA0KDQpJbiBteSBvcGluaW9uLCB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgSVJPIG9iamVjdCBz aG91bGQgYmUgdHJlYXRlZCBhcyBhbiBvcmRlcmVkIHNlcXVlbmNlIG9mIGhvcHMuDQoNCkl0IGlz IHRydWUgdGhhdCBSRkMgNTQ0MCBkb2VzIG5vdCBtYWtlIGFueSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgYXQgYWxsIGFi b3V0IHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIElSTyBpcyBvcmRlcmVkLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgd2UgaGF2ZSBSRkMgNTUy MSwgd2hpY2ggZGVzY3JpYmVzIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIEVYUlMgc3Vib2JqZWN0IGFzIGZvbGxv d3MgKHNlY3Rpb24gMi4yLjIpOg0KDQogICBJZiBhIFBDRSBwYXJzZXMgYW4gSVJPIGFuZCBlbmNv dW50ZXJzIGFuIEVYUlMgWy4uLl0gdGhlIFBDRSBNVVNUIE5PVA0KICAgcHJvZHVjZSBhIHBhdGgg dGhhdCBpbmNsdWRlcyBhbnkgcmVzb3VyY2UgaWRlbnRpZmllZCBieSB0aGUgRVhSUw0KICAgc3Vi b2JqZWN0IGluIHRoZSBwYXRoIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHByZXZpb3VzIGFic3RyYWN0IG5vZGUgaW4g dGhlIElSTw0KICAgYW5kIHRoZSBuZXh0IGFic3RyYWN0IG5vZGUgaW4gdGhlIElSTy4NCg0KQWx0 aG91Z2ggdGhpcyBpcyBvcGVuIHRvIGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uLCBJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBp bXBsaWVzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFic3RyYWN0IG5vZGVzIGluIHRoZSBJUk8gYXJlIHNwZWNpZmllZCBp biBvcmRlci4NCg0KSW5zdGVhZCBvZiBjcmVhdGluZyBhIG5ldyBvYmplY3QgdHlwZSBmb3Ig4oCc b3JkZXJlZCBJUk/igJ0sIEkgd291bGQgcHJlZmVyIHRvIHJlc29sdmUgdGhpcyBieSBjbGFyaWZ5 aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIElSTyBpbiBSRkMgNTQ0MCBpcyBvcmRlcmVkLiAgWW91ciBkcmFmdCBhbmQg dGhlIHByb3RvY29sIHdpbGwgYmUgc2ltcGxlciBhcyBhIHJlc3VsdC4NCg0KSWYgb3BlcmF0b3Jz IGhhdmUgdXNlIGNhc2VzIGZvciB3aGljaCBhbiB1bm9yZGVyZWQgSVJPIGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkLCB0 aGVuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGVhbHQgd2l0aCBieSBjcmVhdGluZyBhIG5ldyBv YmplY3QgdHlwZSBmb3Ig4oCcdW5vcmRlcmVkIElST+KAnSAoYW5kIHByb2JhYmx5IGV4Y2x1ZGlu ZyB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIEVYUlMgaW4gdGhhdCBvYmplY3QpLiAgQnV0IHRoYXQgd291bGQgbm90IG5l ZWQgdG8gYmUgZGVhbHQgd2l0aCBieSB5b3VyIGRyYWZ0Lg0KDQpPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIHRoaXMgaXMg anVzdCBteSBvcGluaW9uLCBhbmQgaXMgc3RpbGwgb3BlbiB0byBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBhcyB3 ZSBoYXZlIHNhaWQuDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcw0KSm9uDQoNCg0KRnJvbTogUmFtb24gQ2FzZWxs YXMgW21haWx0bzpyYW1vbi5jYXNlbGxhc0BjdHRjLmVzXQ0KU2VudDogMDQgTWFyY2ggMjAxNCAw OTozNg0KVG86IHBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZzsgSm9uYXRoYW4gSGFyZHdpY2sNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBb UGNlXSBRdWVzdGlvbiBvbiBuZXcgSVJPIHR5cGUNCg0KT24gMDMvMDQvMjAxNCAxMDozMiBBTSwg UmFtb24gQ2FzZWxsYXMgd3JvdGU6DQoNCkFsbCwNCg0KQXMgZWxhYm9yYXRlZCBpbiBbMV0gKHNl ZSBvcHRpb24gYykNCkVyciwgSSBtZWFudCBiKS4gIFRoZSBtb3RpdmF0aW9ucyB3ZXJlIG1haW5s eToNCg0KICAxLiBfT2JqZWN0IE9yZGVyaW5nXw0KICAgIDIuIF9EaWZmZXJlbnQgU2NvcGVzXw0K ICAgIDMuIF9MaW1pdGVkIFByb2NlZHVyZXNfDQogICAgNC4gIF9TdHJpY3QgdnMgTG9vc2VfDQoN ClIuDQo= --_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBAE135BD53ENFICSMBX1datco_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTIgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 SGVsdmV0aWNhOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA0IDIgMiAyIDIgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UN Cgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAz IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAx NSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpUYWhvbWE7DQoJ cGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2IDQgMyA1IDQgNCAyIDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8N CnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBjbTsN CgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWls eToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOmJsYWNrO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bh bi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJ dGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5r Rm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0 LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnAuTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCwgbGkuTXNvTGlzdFBh cmFncmFwaCwgZGl2Lk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5OjM0Ow0K CW1hcmdpbi10b3A6MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowY207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowY207 DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNp emU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7DQoJY29s b3I6YmxhY2s7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwt cmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6NjEyLjBwdCA3OTIu MHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjo3Mi4wcHQgNzIuMHB0IDcyLjBwdCA3Mi4wcHQ7fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0 aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5 XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4N CjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlv dXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286 c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3 aGl0ZSIgbGFuZz0iRU4tR0IiIGxpbms9ImJsdWUiIHZsaW5rPSJwdXJwbGUiPg0KPGRpdiBjbGFz cz0iV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1z ZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5SYW1vbiwgRGhydXYsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2Nv bG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0Nh bGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5JbiBteSBv cGluaW9uLCB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgSVJPIG9iamVjdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdHJlYXRlZCBhcyBhbiBv cmRlcmVkIHNlcXVlbmNlIG9mIGhvcHMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxv OnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1 b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5JdCBpcyB0cnVlIHRoYXQgUkZDIDU0 NDAgZG9lcyBub3QgbWFrZSBhbnkgc3RhdGVtZW50IGF0IGFsbCBhYm91dCB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBJ Uk8gaXMgb3JkZXJlZC4mbmJzcDsgSG93ZXZlciwgd2UgaGF2ZSBSRkMgNTUyMSwgd2hpY2ggZGVz Y3JpYmVzIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIEVYUlMNCiBzdWJvYmplY3QgYXMgZm9sbG93cyAoc2VjdGlv biAyLjIuMik6PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90 OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6 MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZx dW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgSWYgYSBQQ0UgcGFyc2VzIGFuIElSTyBh bmQgZW5jb3VudGVycyBhbiBFWFJTIFsuLi5dIHRoZSBQQ0UgTVVTVCBOT1Q8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVv dDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IHByb2R1Y2UgYSBwYXRoIHRoYXQgaW5jbHVk ZXMgYW55IHJlc291cmNlIGlkZW50aWZpZWQgYnkgdGhlIEVYUlM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29s b3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IHN1Ym9iamVjdCBpbiB0aGUgcGF0aCBiZXR3ZWVuIHRo ZSBwcmV2aW91cyBhYnN0cmFjdCBub2RlIGluIHRoZSBJUk88bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6 IzFGNDk3RCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IGFuZCB0aGUgbmV4dCBhYnN0cmFjdCBub2RlIGluIHRoZSBJ Uk8uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVv dDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztj b2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5BbHRob3VnaCB0aGlzIGlzIG9wZW4gdG8gaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24sIEkg dGhpbmsgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGltcGxpZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgYWJzdHJhY3Qgbm9kZXMgaW4gdGhlIElS TyBhcmUgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIG9yZGVyLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZx dW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+SW5zdGVhZCBvZiBjcmVhdGluZyBh IG5ldyBvYmplY3QgdHlwZSBmb3Ig4oCcb3JkZXJlZCBJUk/igJ0sIEkgd291bGQgcHJlZmVyIHRv IHJlc29sdmUgdGhpcyBieSBjbGFyaWZ5aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIElSTyBpbiBSRkMgNTQ0MCBpcyBv cmRlcmVkLiZuYnNwOyBZb3VyIGRyYWZ0IGFuZCB0aGUNCiBwcm90b2NvbCB3aWxsIGJlIHNpbXBs ZXIgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJy aSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1z ZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5JZiBvcGVyYXRvcnMgaGF2ZSB1c2UgY2FzZXMgZm9y IHdoaWNoIGFuIHVub3JkZXJlZCBJUk8gaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQsIHRoZW4gSSB0aGluayB0aGlzIHNo b3VsZCBiZSBkZWFsdCB3aXRoIGJ5IGNyZWF0aW5nIGEgbmV3IG9iamVjdCB0eXBlIGZvciDigJx1 bm9yZGVyZWQgSVJP4oCdDQogKGFuZCBwcm9iYWJseSBleGNsdWRpbmcgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBFWFJT IGluIHRoYXQgb2JqZWN0KS4mbmJzcDsgQnV0IHRoYXQgd291bGQgbm90IG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZGVh bHQgd2l0aCBieSB5b3VyIGRyYWZ0LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90 O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpw PiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90 O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+T2YgY291cnNlLCB0aGlzIGlzIGp1c3Qg bXkgb3BpbmlvbiwgYW5kIGlzIHN0aWxsIG9wZW4gdG8gaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gYXMgd2UgaGF2 ZSBzYWlkLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDss JnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVv dDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+QmVzdCByZWdhcmRzPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0QiPkpvbjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDss JnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVv dDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxk aXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRk aW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhv bWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjp3aW5kb3d0ZXh0Ij5Gcm9tOjwv c3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1RhaG9tYSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOndp bmRvd3RleHQiPiBSYW1vbiBDYXNlbGxhcyBbbWFpbHRvOnJhbW9uLmNhc2VsbGFzQGN0dGMuZXNd DQo8YnI+DQo8Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gMDQgTWFyY2ggMjAxNCAwOTozNjxicj4NCjxiPlRvOjwvYj4g cGNlQGlldGYub3JnOyBKb25hdGhhbiBIYXJkd2ljazxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTog W1BjZV0gUXVlc3Rpb24gb24gbmV3IElSTyB0eXBlPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K PGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPk9uIDAzLzA0LzIwMTQgMTA6MzIgQU0sIFJhbW9u IENhc2VsbGFzIHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8YmxvY2txdW90ZSBzdHls ZT0ibWFyZ2luLXRvcDo1LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjUuMHB0Ij4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxicj4NCkFsbCw8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7SGVsdmV0aWNhJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDsiPkFzIGVsYWJvcmF0ZWQg aW4gWzFdIChzZWUgb3B0aW9uIGMpPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9ibG9ja3F1b3Rl Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Ij48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7SGVsdmV0aWNhJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2Vy aWYmcXVvdDsiPkVyciwgSSBtZWFudCBiKS4mbmJzcDsgVGhlIG1vdGl2YXRpb25zIHdlcmUgbWFp bmx5Ojxicj4NCjxicj4NCiZuYnNwOyAxLiBfT2JqZWN0IE9yZGVyaW5nXzxicj4NCiZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyAyLiBfRGlmZmVyZW50IFNjb3Blc188YnI+DQombmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsg My4gX0xpbWl0ZWQgUHJvY2VkdXJlc188YnI+DQombmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgNC4mbmJzcDsg X1N0cmljdCB2cyBMb29zZV88YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpSLjwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBAE135BD53ENFICSMBX1datco_-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:54:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98CAA1A03D8 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xlEKdWmBai1M for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from oms-mc02.r1000.mx.aol.com (oms-mc02.r1000.mx.aol.com [64.12.81.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60E11A0424 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtaomg-mba01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mba01.mx.aol.com [172.26.133.111]) by oms-mc02.r1000.mx.aol.com (AOL Outbound OMS Interface) with ESMTP id 5996C38000053; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-aba08f.mail.aol.com (core-aba08.mail.aol.com [172.27.22.8]) by mtaomg-mba01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 1830838000084; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:03 -0500 (EST) References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> <531729C0.1050304@orange.com> To: olivier.dugeon@orange.com, jvasseur@cisco.com, pce@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <531729C0.1050304@orange.com> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dorian Davis X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D106918041D791_227C_41FA_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 38430-STANDARD Received: from 31.133.164.50 by webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com (149.174.18.27) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:54:02 -0500 Message-Id: <8D10691803F7632-227C-14B0@webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [31.133.164.50] Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:03 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: S DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1394027643; bh=Gp3JsrzSppVazwxXq+PqbbIAyM1sV39UugvYdQufWNo=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YZsUnNc1AQuMioAMKYpXxeX9DCZF2Jbpv0rsWdbK2J07ywqOSSOEbyoMy5/AHj+uy obSoUl4bDC6fnaEfh6up0I5KMTN5vqVp0tyWXpIIDNC7G/26uaH2VVSo0/fLwXGWCY Yj3xMI3H6B+7Sra08fvYcE0ezpcoC68FfaYdJDCQ= X-AOL-REROUTE: YES x-aol-sid: 3039ac1a856f53172c7b6c1e Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/nEQt4f7AjbRPJlO2LRPVC8BwZbE Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:54:08 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8D106918041D791_227C_41FA_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Support!=20 ------------------ Dorian Davis davis.dorian@aim.com -----Original Message----- From: Olivier Dugeon To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) ; pce Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.= txt as PCE WG Document ? support Le 04/03/2014 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) a =C3=A9crit : > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support fo= r=20 adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt > as a PCE WG. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adoptin= g=20 draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > 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 =20 ----------MB_8D106918041D791_227C_41FA_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Support! 

= ------------------
Doria= n Davis
davis.dorian@aim.com


-----= Original Message-----
From: Olivier Dugeon <olivier.dugeon@orange.com>
To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <jvasseur@cisco.com>; pce <pce@ietf.org&= gt;
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.= txt as PCE WG Document ?

support

Le 04/03/2014 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) a =C3=A9crit :
> Dear WG,
>
> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support=
 for=20
adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt
> as a PCE WG.
>
> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adop=
ting=20
draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP and Julien.
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>


_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt=
ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
----------MB_8D106918041D791_227C_41FA_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:54:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47851A014E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id llqKmyzO0Jnd for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from oms-dc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (oms-dc04.r1000.mx.aol.com [205.188.167.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FAA1A0424 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtaomg-mcc02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mcc02.mx.aol.com [172.26.253.80]) by oms-dc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (AOL Outbound OMS Interface) with ESMTP id AB6A2380019B8; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-aba08f.mail.aol.com (core-aba08.mail.aol.com [172.27.22.8]) by mtaomg-mcc02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 57DF438000088; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:25 -0500 (EST) References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> <531729AE.6020203@orange.com> To: olivier.dugeon@orange.com, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <531729AE.6020203@orange.com> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dorian Davis X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D106918D869C1E_227C_4224_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 38430-STANDARD Received: from 31.133.164.50 by webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com (149.174.18.27) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:54:25 -0500 Message-Id: <8D106918D81D960-227C-14BA@webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [31.133.164.50] Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:25 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: S DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1394027665; bh=S4TUi2N+Sf/XTilDtSc7EBRYxA4KucMS6x5JZFpJof8=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BzdKOWvSbP+DdQBq8/IrB3cerIpJ6K+Q8rErltj2pk5+f7RgPPDX79lujr1hMms6R nc25Y+qexKS+VgpRTTn1h8kulJXNHNef1E2gnDrtVa7yCiA2itmlY0/1NBZ598fd7U 9WJz4sFCxkZKutv8gThsWvMFAxVBv8I6N9mXN55Q= X-AOL-REROUTE: YES x-aol-sid: 3039ac1afd5053172c910d4a Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/CWLcVMXpWRc5kZigadTloD7SsC0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:54:36 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8D106918D869C1E_227C_4224_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Support!=20 ------------------ Dorian Davis davis.dorian@aim.com -----Original Message----- From: Olivier Dugeon To: Julien Meuric ; pce Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations = as PCE WG Document? support Le 04/03/2014 19:12, Julien Meuric a =C3=A9crit : > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for=20 > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of=20 > adopting it as a WG document? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 =20 ----------MB_8D106918D869C1E_227C_4224_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Support! 

= ------------------
Doria= n Davis
davis.dorian@aim.com


-----= Original Message-----
From: Olivier Dugeon <olivier.dugeon@orange.com>
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>; pce <pce@ietf.org>= ;
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations = as PCE WG Document?

support

Le 04/03/2014 19:12, Julien Meuric a =C3=A9crit :
> Dear WG,
>
> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for=
=20
> adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG it=
em.
>
> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of=20
> adopting it as a WG document?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP and Julien.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>


_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt=
ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
----------MB_8D106918D869C1E_227C_4224_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:54:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2E71A0450 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DTYPCoLm8I-X for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from oms-dd02.mx.aol.com (oms-dd02.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E911A014E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtaomg-mbe02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mbe02.mx.aol.com [172.26.254.176]) by oms-dd02.mx.aol.com (AOL Outbound OMS Interface) with ESMTP id C4A0C3800035E; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-aba08f.mail.aol.com (core-aba08.mail.aol.com [172.27.22.8]) by mtaomg-mbe02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 8040C38000087; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:45 -0500 (EST) References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> <5317297C.5050804@orange.com> To: olivier.dugeon@orange.com, jvasseur@cisco.com, pce@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5317297C.5050804@orange.com> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dorian Davis X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D10691998ECA50_227C_4250_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 38430-STANDARD Received: from 31.133.164.50 by webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com (149.174.18.27) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:54:45 -0500 Message-Id: <8D10691998A0792-227C-14C4@webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [31.133.164.50] Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:54:45 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: S DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1394027685; bh=TqE7uYNFkzLwYlIBH9kue72Bx+wf/0foo6nQFfn1z4I=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=K4KBjm5QjUOReBxg84H7alObcIpzd6ueCgOD1wM01jAkFh1eGS/LGA/TJPM2j0UND Zpbv3CfRTZ4+kWKMqx08vkByC9HFOtjWmtA2LwkN7NtFrW+mtwypqlTRB0HY5/9HMZ glpmHo3MZJsczJJPlgPsVAuaUjpVeu3yk+3D6Lu4= X-AOL-REROUTE: YES x-aol-sid: 3039ac1afeb053172ca500e5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/HHEQFKBIOdYHNPFkcGikW0owZFw Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:54:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8D10691998ECA50_227C_4250_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Support!=20 ------------------ Dorian Davis davis.dorian@aim.com -----Original Message----- From: Olivier Dugeon To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) ; pce Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document = ? support Le 04/03/2014 10:47, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) a =C3=A9crit : > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support fo= r=20 adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG > document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adoptin= g=20 draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > 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 =20 ----------MB_8D10691998ECA50_227C_4250_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Support! 

= ------------------
Doria= n Davis
davis.dorian@aim.com


-----= Original Message-----
From: Olivier Dugeon <olivier.dugeon@orange.com>
To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) <jvasseur@cisco.com>; pce <pce@ietf.org&= gt;
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document = ?

support

Le 04/03/2014 10:47, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) a =C3=A9crit :
> Dear WG,
>
> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support=
 for=20
adopting draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG
> document, as usual, we would like to confirm on the mailing list.
>
> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adop=
ting=20
draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as a WG document ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP and Julien.
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>


_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt=
ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
----------MB_8D10691998ECA50_227C_4250_webmail-d137.sysops.aol.com-- From nobody Wed Mar 5 05:58:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F311A0140 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:58:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xots2XH_G1Uq for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:58:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972651A013F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:58:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=604; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394027903; x=1395237503; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=gWFSoe5w6USZeegL59nj1sEM5eh6YtTsV/I62WVMrBg=; b=YdPiAdX54WXRuOYLgoJFFBOMpT1ARQKqxyj5QyOkbFyjE5bnBEGUGOsw EN9o3uqiLwU5k3VoqW6630RJNUJXZMbNP3CiySZCCYbUl3SE1PWsLGR3W TSs9TViFdIMAUh481Rpyd0lLkolfJC3ZG2tJOPKFbp5/3oZRMECyflB0X 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAMIsF1OtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABagwY7SwzBC4EWFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQsCAQg2ECcLJQIEDgWHcQgNzX0TBI4eMweDJIEUAQOYPZIrgW+BPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,593,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="308220310" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 13:58:23 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s25DwMsS014908 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:58:22 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.171]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:58:22 -0600 From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rS61YA Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:58:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.104.226] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/g6kV01KG28hkH_RNcM7i-QzQL8c Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:58:28 -0000 Support. Cheers G On 04 Mar 2014, at 11:51, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > Dear WG, >=20 > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support fo= r adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt=20 > as a PCE WG. >=20 > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adoptin= g draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document ? >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > JP and Julien. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 18:04:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE24B1A0060 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:04:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uCYJSyrMNAeN for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:03:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58141A0056 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:03:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=586; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394071435; x=1395281035; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=F8CJVH0aKx6yPRx3WNOBRw32EjyU6HISwWiFzFW0+Pk=; b=gqz7ujvP2Ew5aklUHsXGYB++o944I3W6rvPUTspkR7/JCQTm8AkoD8TJ 8cykir/SZ3/Ldf/CVRVCRrp7Cp5lVGGys81mfyCRejPB47EByBtDJiVLx g1cC3fZSUAlBITKpgxk6woCIsuQ2GAfEl1BT+93BA7QCFjq9mKaXUPvTo U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAGHWF1OtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8IsFnSCJwEEAQEBNzQdAQg2NwsnBAESh3kNzwwTBJMQBJg9kiuBb4E+gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,597,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="25277806" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2014 02:03:54 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2623sGY007122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:03:54 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.8]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:03:54 -0600 From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPOOBTGtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1Aw== Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:03:53 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.86.243.191] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9CDC115B1EC0264BB6C155A0F5D4172F@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/I2cuEicrAz_d4z2IwYw0GsWiOgc Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 02:04:04 -0000 Support. Regards, Tarek On 2014-03-04 5:51 AM, "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" wrote: >Dear WG, > >As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had some support >for adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt >as a PCE WG. > >Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of >adopting draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as a WG document >? > >Thanks. > >JP and Julien. >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 22:20:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279C51A00D1 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:20:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TcRrAkFd7Hg2 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw010.noc.ntt.com (mgw010.noc.ntt.com [210.160.55.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA951A00DB for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:20:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from c0042i0.coe.ntt.com (c0042i0.nc.agilit-hosting.com [10.18.161.11]) by mgw010.noc.ntt.com (NTT Com MailSV) with ESMTP id 0EDBF57A0BBE; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:20:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from C0040I0.coe.ntt.com (10.18.160.44) by c0042i0.coe.ntt.com (10.18.161.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.438.0; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:20:31 +0900 Received: from C0007I0.coe.ntt.com ([169.254.1.196]) by C0040I0.coe.ntt.com ([10.18.160.44]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:20:35 +0900 From: Yosuke Tanaka To: 'Julien Meuric' , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9Va0M9VTNNw2kSCGKAB6DSyiprTmIRA Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:20:34 +0000 Message-ID: <4382467A240ADE4C8552523C24D51B575806CFEB@C0007I0.coe.ntt.com> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ccmail-original-to: julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org x-originating-ip: [10.25.131.8] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/IPp6uIiZVy1G-VW0TgKSHl-NFs0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:20:45 -0000 Support. -- Yosuke -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:12 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Dear WG, As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting it as a WG document? Thanks. JP and Julien. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 5 23:20:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6681B1A00F3 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:20:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.282 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, T_FRT_BELOW2=0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ySQYmaqRreg for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:20:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50CB51A00ED for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:20:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 5893F12A4B8B; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:20:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id s267J9PU067366; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:19:09 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from tang.kexin@zte.com.cn) To: saalvare@cisco.com, msiva@cisco.com, zali@cisco.com, luis.tomotaki@verizon.com, vlopez@tid.es MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: 9024E5D4:209DC995-48257C93:0024D0E4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 Message-ID: From: tang.kexin@zte.com.cn Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:16:38 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2014-03-06 15:18:51, Serialize complete at 2014-03-06 15:18:51 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002877C348257C93_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn s267J9PU067366 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4tOA2lcLvaUL2jQfksfllJcfRFo Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Question regarding draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-01 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 07:20:27 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 002877C348257C93_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RGVhciBhdXRob3JzIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWFsdmFyZXotcGNlLXBhdGgtcHJvZmlsZXMtMDEsIHBsZWFz ZSBmaW5kIGJlbG9sdyB0d28gDQpxdWVzdGlvbnMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIGRyYWZ0IGRyYWZ0LWFsdmFy ZXotcGNlLXBhdGgtcHJvZmlsZXMtMDE6DQoNCqGqIFdoYXQgaXMgdGhlIG1haW4gcHVycG9zZSBv ZiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0PyBJIGRpZCBub3Qgc2VlIHRoZSB1c2UgY2FzZSBpbiANCnlvdXIgZHJhZnQu DQoNCqGqICJBIHBhdGggcHJvZmlsZSByZXByZXNlbnRzIGEgbGlzdCBvZiBwYXRoIHBhcmFtZXRl cnMgb3IgcG9saWNpZXMgdGhhdCBhIA0KUENFUCBwZWVyIG1heSBpbnZva2Ugb24gYSByZW1vdGUg cGVlciB1c2luZyBhIHByb2ZpbGUgaWRlbnRpZmllci4iDQogDQogICAgQ291bGQgeW91IHBsZWFz ZSBnaXZlIHNvbWUgZXhhbXBsZXMgb2YgdGhlc2UgcGF0aCBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIG9yIA0KcG9saWNp ZXM/IFRoYW5rcy4NCg0KQmVzdCBSZWdhcmRzLA0KDQpLZXhpbg0K --=_alternative 002877C348257C93_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkRlYXIgYXV0aG9ycyBvZiBkcmFmdC1hbHZh cmV6LXBjZS1wYXRoLXByb2ZpbGVzLTAxLA0KcGxlYXNlIGZpbmQgYmVsb2x3IHR3byBxdWVzdGlv bnMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIGRyYWZ0IGRyYWZ0LWFsdmFyZXotcGNlLXBhdGgtcHJvZmlsZXMtMDE6PC9m b250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj6hqiBXaGF0IGlz IHRoZSBtYWluIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgdGhpcw0KZHJhZnQ/IEkgZGlkIG5vdCBzZWUgdGhlIHVzZSBj YXNlIGluIHlvdXIgZHJhZnQuPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJz YW5zLXNlcmlmIj6hqiAmcXVvdDtBIHBhdGggcHJvZmlsZSByZXByZXNlbnRzIGENCmxpc3Qgb2Yg cGF0aCBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIG9yIHBvbGljaWVzIHRoYXQgYSBQQ0VQIHBlZXIgbWF5IGludm9rZSBv biBhIHJlbW90ZQ0KcGVlciB1c2luZyBhIHByb2ZpbGUgaWRlbnRpZmllci4mcXVvdDs8L2ZvbnQ+ DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+ DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgQ291bGQg eW91IHBsZWFzZSBnaXZlDQpzb21lIGV4YW1wbGVzIG9mIHRoZXNlIHBhdGggcGFyYW1ldGVycyBv ciBwb2xpY2llcz8gVGhhbmtzLjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0i c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+QmVzdCBSZWdhcmRzLDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIg ZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+S2V4aW48L2ZvbnQ+DQo= --=_alternative 002877C348257C93_=-- From nobody Thu Mar 6 02:36:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCB61A0264 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:36:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.367 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FRT_BELOW2=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R2EGx_ajoSkW for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:36:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFA41A0256 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:36:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEH28434; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:36:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:36:09 +0000 Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:36:42 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.85]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:36:36 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "tang.kexin@zte.com.cn" , "saalvare@cisco.com" , "msiva@cisco.com" , "zali@cisco.com" , "luis.tomotaki@verizon.com" , "vlopez@tid.es" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Question regarding draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-01 Thread-Index: AQHPOQyaxQGrvZ5iIUunjZH8kkRvdZrTxBWQ Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:36:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.109.113] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84505F15nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8TzeKmpRfbxqP_d0o31MsRvWPho Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFF1ZXN0aW9uIHJlZ2FyZGluZyBkcmFmdC1hbHZh?= =?gb2312?b?cmV6LXBjZS1wYXRoLXByb2ZpbGVzLTAx?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:36:55 -0000 --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84505F15nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBjYW4gc2VlIHByb2ZpbGUgaWRlbnRpZmllciBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCBiZXR3ZWVuIFBDQyBhbmQg UENFIHRvIHJlZmVyIHRvIGFuZCBleGNoYW5nZSBsb2NhbCBwb2xpY3kgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uDQpT ZXJ2aWNlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGNoYWluaW5nIChTZmMpIGNhbiBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSB1c2UgdGhpcyBt ZWNoYW5pc20gdG8gZG8gY29tbXVuaWNhdGUgcG9saWN5IGFuZCBwYXRoIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9uIHRv Z2V0aGVyLg0KVGhlIG90aGVyIGNhc2UgY2FuIGJlIHVzZSBjYXNlIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiAzLjEg b2YgZHJhZnQtYXZhbnRpa2EtcGNlLW11bHRpLXNyYy1kZXN0LTAxLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzIQ0KLVFp bg0Kt6K8/sjLOiBQY2UgW21haWx0bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SB0YW5nLmtl eGluQHp0ZS5jb20uY24NCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoz1MI2yNUgMTU6MTcNCsrVvP7Iyzogc2Fh bHZhcmVAY2lzY28uY29tOyBtc2l2YUBjaXNjby5jb207IHphbGlAY2lzY28uY29tOyBsdWlzLnRv bW90YWtpQHZlcml6b24uY29tOyB2bG9wZXpAdGlkLmVzDQqzrcvNOiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3 zOI6IFtQY2VdIFF1ZXN0aW9uIHJlZ2FyZGluZyBkcmFmdC1hbHZhcmV6LXBjZS1wYXRoLXByb2Zp bGVzLTAxDQoNCkRlYXIgYXV0aG9ycyBvZiBkcmFmdC1hbHZhcmV6LXBjZS1wYXRoLXByb2ZpbGVz LTAxLCBwbGVhc2UgZmluZCBiZWxvbHcgdHdvIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyByZWdhcmRpbmcgZHJhZnQgZHJh ZnQtYWx2YXJlei1wY2UtcGF0aC1wcm9maWxlcy0wMToNCg0KoaogV2hhdCBpcyB0aGUgbWFpbiBw dXJwb3NlIG9mIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQ/IEkgZGlkIG5vdCBzZWUgdGhlIHVzZSBjYXNlIGluIHlvdXIg ZHJhZnQuDQoNCqGqICJBIHBhdGggcHJvZmlsZSByZXByZXNlbnRzIGEgbGlzdCBvZiBwYXRoIHBh cmFtZXRlcnMgb3IgcG9saWNpZXMgdGhhdCBhIFBDRVAgcGVlciBtYXkgaW52b2tlIG9uIGEgcmVt b3RlIHBlZXIgdXNpbmcgYSBwcm9maWxlIGlkZW50aWZpZXIuIg0KDQogICAgQ291bGQgeW91IHBs ZWFzZSBnaXZlIHNvbWUgZXhhbXBsZXMgb2YgdGhlc2UgcGF0aCBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIG9yIHBvbGlj aWVzPyBUaGFua3MuDQoNCkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcywNCg0KS2V4aW4NCg== --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84505F15nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I can see = profile identifier can be used between PCC and PCE to refer to and exchange= local policy information.

Service fu= nction chaining (Sfc) can potentially use this mechanism to do communicate = policy and path computation together.

The other = case can be use case described in 3.1 of draft-avantika-pce-multi-src-dest-= 01.

 = ;

Regards!

-Qin<= /o:p>

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8= =CB: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED tang.kexin@zte.com.cn
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA3=D4=C26=C8=D5 15= :17
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: saalvare@cisco.com; msiva@cisco.com; zali@cisco.com; luis.tomotaki@= verizon.com; vlopez@tid.es
=B3=AD=CB=CD: pce@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: [Pce] Question regarding draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-01

 

Dear authors of draft-alva= rez-pce-path-profiles-01, please find belolw two questions regarding draft = draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-01:

=A1=AA What is the main purpose of this dr= aft? I did not see the use case in your draft.

=A1=AA "A path profile represents a l= ist of path parameters or policies that a PCEP peer may invoke on a remote = peer using a profile identifier."
   
    Could you please give some e= xamples of these path parameters or policies? Thanks.

Best Regards,

Kexin

--_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84505F15nkgeml501mbschi_-- From nobody Thu Mar 6 08:29:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B691A01E9 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:29:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.541 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zRnX9tpD-0lt for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6A21A0190 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEH61290; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:29:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:26:27 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.33) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:27:01 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.15]) by SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 00:26:55 +0800 From: Fatai Zhang To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN5e5Gtk1c90J+UmSYhGYPCM1A5rUQnpg Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:26:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <745D9010-D214-4FD8-89B6-C09AA763D7E3@cisco.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.122.219] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/YyAUUvrafzm9Bhfiw9lgM5ci6Y4 Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogQWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtYWxpLXBjZS1yZW1v?= =?gb2312?b?dGUtaW5pdGlhdGVkLWdtcGxzLWxzcC0wMy50eHQgYXMgUENFIFdHIERvY3Vt?= =?gb2312?b?ZW50ID8=?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:29:48 -0000 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KDQpUaGFua3MNCg0KRmF0YWkNCg0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0t DQq3orz+yMs6IFBjZSBbbWFpbHRvOnBjZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIEpQIFZhc3Nl dXIgKGp2YXNzZXVyKQ0Kt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTTE6jPUwjTI1SAxODo1Mg0KytW8/sjLOiBwY2VA aWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3zOI6IFtQY2VdIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWlu aXRpYXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0IGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1bWVudCA/DQoNCkRlYXIgV0cs DQoNCkFzIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIFBDRSBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIHRvZGF5IHdoZXJlIHdl IGhhZCBzb21lIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRp YXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0IA0KYXMgYSBQQ0UgV0cuDQoNCldvdWxkIHlvdSBiZSBpbiBm YXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIChhbmQgd2h5IGlmIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGp1c3RpZnkpIG9mIGFkb3B0aW5n IGRyYWZ0LWFsaS1wY2UtcmVtb3RlLWluaXRpYXRlZC1nbXBscy1sc3AtMDMudHh0IGFzIGEgV0cg ZG9jdW1lbnQgPw0KDQpUaGFua3MuDQoNCkpQIGFuZCBKdWxpZW4uDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGll dGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0K From nobody Thu Mar 6 08:31:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D0B1A00F4 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.541 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yw36EscTM8f8 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:30:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467071A00E8 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:30:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBU83565; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:30:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:25:56 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.42) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:26:13 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.15]) by SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.42]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 00:26:09 +0800 From: Fatai Zhang To: Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? Thread-Index: AQHPN9VeZVQqx432DEulMHmFghL/OJrUQc+w Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:26:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.122.219] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/39xB3fN9DrR7XUKj4o-cPbgbAlQ Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LW1pbmVpLXBjZS1z?= =?gb2312?b?dGF0ZWZ1bC1zeW5jLW9wdGltaXphdGlvbnMgYXMgUENFIFdHIERvY3VtZW50?= =?gb2312?b?Pw==?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:30:57 -0000 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KDQpUaGFua3MNCg0KRmF0YWkNCg0KDQoNCi0tLS0t08q8/tStvP4tLS0tLQ0K t6K8/sjLOiBQY2UgW21haWx0bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBKdWxpZW4gTWV1 cmljDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxNMTqM9TCNcjVIDI6MTINCsrVvP7IyzogcGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQrW 98ziOiBbUGNlXSBBZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1taW5laS1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtc3luYy1vcHRp bWl6YXRpb25zIGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1bWVudD8NCg0KRGVhciBXRywNCg0KQXMgZGlzY3Vzc2Vk IGR1cmluZyB0aGUgUENFIFdHIG1lZXRpbmcgdG9kYXksIHdlIGhhZCBzb21lIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9y IGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LW1pbmVpLXBjZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1zeW5jLW9wdGltaXphdGlvbnMtMDEg YXMgYSBQQ0UgV0cgaXRlbS4NCg0KV291bGQgeW91IGJlIGluIGZhdm9yL29wcG9zZWQgKGFuZCB3 aHkgaWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8ganVzdGlmeSkgb2YgYWRvcHRpbmcgaXQgYXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1bWVu dD8NCg0KVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpKUCBhbmQgSnVsaWVuLg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3Jn DQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0K From nobody Thu Mar 6 08:31:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6CB1A01C2 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:31:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.541 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sqVyFdPVpOdV for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:31:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E1F1A0141 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEH61373; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:31:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:26:48 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.34) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:27:19 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.15]) by SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 00:27:14 +0800 From: Fatai Zhang To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ? Thread-Index: AQHPN47Q0dVlnOrDD0i+8+5vOnlg5prUQrxw Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:27:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB2B417-E61B-4965-9795-A3325BC171A9@cisco.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.122.219] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/pZaQghlEABzxnmiw372htbK65X0 Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogQWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtbG9wZXotcGNlLXBj?= =?gb2312?b?ZXBzLTAyIGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1bWVudCA/?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:31:36 -0000 DQpTdXBwb3J0Lg0KDQoNClRoYW5rcw0KDQpGYXRhaQ0KDQoNCi0tLS0t08q8/tStvP4tLS0tLQ0K t6K8/sjLOiBQY2UgW21haWx0bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBKUCBWYXNzZXVy IChqdmFzc2V1cikNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE0xOoz1MI0yNUgMTc6NDgNCsrVvP7IyzogcGNlQGll dGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBbUGNlXSBBZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1sb3Blei1wY2UtcGNlcHMtMDIg YXMgUENFIFdHIERvY3VtZW50ID8NCg0KRGVhciBXRywNCg0KQXMgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGR1cmluZyB0 aGUgUENFIFdHIG1lZXRpbmcgdG9kYXkgd2hlcmUgd2UgaGFkIGdvb2Qgc3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgYWRv cHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtbG9wZXotcGNlLXBjZXBzLTAyIGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGFzIHVzdWFs LCB3ZSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGNvbmZpcm0gb24gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4NCg0KV291bGQg eW91IGJlIGluIGZhdm9yL29wcG9zZWQgKGFuZCB3aHkgaWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8ganVzdGlmeSkg b2YgYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtbG9wZXotcGNlLXBjZXBzLTAyIGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgPw0K DQpUaGFua3MuDQoNCkpQIGFuZCBKdWxpZW4uDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0K From nobody Mon Mar 10 16:13:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DAB1A0232 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:13:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcHbhWybQTcW for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B231A04C5 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:13:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=302; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394493183; x=1395702783; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vBTPN+GbmpqgGa9u/gcwfmhOKXzUAFgxMFhokv7782g=; b=Qxx4fK1Zm5g/7ZJYeJL8uzySkLIOBRKbbHOejiq7jihBdOWK/Eo2U3zz UY679vUuhDDEUWGVbtwpG/VCspoKa4ZPC4Jq7dXHdUc4/hwkRIAUigAMY PhSUQ+4mDBQwrhfOOUtCjF44r/iCSyPmL21amXoB0L6nXEyR44eSwpZMT o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAJRGHlOtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwaBEsFKgR4WdIIsOj8SAT5CJwQOh37PfxeOW4MrgRQEmEWSLYFvgT6CKw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,627,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="309374253" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2014 23:13:03 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2AND2Zw002853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:13:02 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.166]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:13:02 -0500 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New PCE WG Document: draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document Thread-Index: AQHPPLZIyTF15EMyDk2cT+irDqSDUA== Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:13:02 +0000 Message-ID: <234BF45D-7BC6-4A58-B388-4375C9318164@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.94.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <094B83CDE3BFAC4E9F4D9E3B42AAF3D0@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/0gIUKQSCZuWLM_H_n9vObC8Y_Os Subject: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:13:12 -0000 Dear WG, We had a clear consensus to adopt draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizatio= ns as PCE WG Document as a PCE WG document. Authors, please re-submit as draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-00 = with no change other than document name, title and dates. Thanks. JP and Julien.= From nobody Mon Mar 10 16:13:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47BE1A0515 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:13:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D8I0_FXnKRY3 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD621A050E for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:13:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=373; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394493190; x=1395702790; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=bXV3dPp/rKuIWxjDCjlcTkTj9APVjwE5vPuBPx1SiME=; b=MpGZ+lNktWAnVFslp7zC8JHVmdujz58sXuC9ktpZ6jRc/MrstbMdXGtn FwaVj0C6Cd4cF4bzFGpUVbI/HwUI8dxgQl7sYD+wRkP2bISaAAe+ixYTi OGJ8mtRn/rDMH/LKNt1PNQBLvMz68Vgsu1GopV+9yfJgEcEh/6O+6/IVk E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAMxFHlOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagwaBEsFKgR4WdIIsOj8SAT5CJwQOh37QABeOW4MrgRQEmEWSLYFvgT6CKw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,627,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="26379031" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2014 23:13:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2AND9sq023197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:13:09 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.166]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:13:09 -0500 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New PCE WG Document: draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document Thread-Index: AQHPPLZNzvRqArUKVESIJUxFej8rHQ== Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:13:09 +0000 Message-ID: <1BCED310-5C72-4907-B10B-8410E726A6FB@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.94.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4FFEBBE740AC234085CF64CF310338B5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/0q-_sXQbDC8gaRNmKl75eIL-MjA Subject: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:13:17 -0000 Dear WG, We had a clear consensus to adopt draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-= 03.txt as PCE WG Document as a PCE WG document. Authors, please re-submit as draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00.t= xt with no change other than document name, title and dates. Could you please address in revision the comment made by Loa ? Thanks. JP and Julien.= From nobody Mon Mar 10 16:14:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34EA1A0495 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:14:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hR5vbkuRsTD4 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64A81A0232 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:14:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=585; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394493278; x=1395702878; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=C2wY0O3gQtnhM0qhLwsCa2sVSsKqjZYJyJYff+4R/Sk=; b=kOe7REvLX1P6qwBrbJZJazG+aeEFINcJZA71zdIOFNUVPe6UHLa3236m I0p8FbKtiEjaiexmBNmHFj4gEqdbkuzulAZsGJndI5UQBi1fejiU8vcgf EltAR1X/jnIHkTEWR6eMxxAAfDTnvlzt/5v6yu/aj6nfiAIubm2qkPk1D k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANFGHlOtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwaBEsJoFnSCLDoxAx0BPkInBIgMn0mwNheSBoEUBJhFki2DLYIr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,627,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="26379412" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2014 23:14:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2ANEbO2004827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:14:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.166]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:14:38 -0500 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New PCE WG Document: draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document Thread-Index: AQHPPLaBv2T7MDfHD0SKWK0Dh1RFWA== Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:14:37 +0000 Message-ID: <28525BD4-613D-45F5-AA20-B04FAF292338@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.94.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ychCOBfvB8Mg_wpu7ddnywecDp0 Subject: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:14:48 -0000 Dear WG, We had a clear consensus to adopt draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Docume= nt as a PCE WG document. Authors, please re-submit as draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00 with no change other t= han document name, title and dates. Two comments: 1) As discussed during the WG meeting, please share with the mailing list t= he status of your discussion with the experts=20 from the transport area 2) I would suggest (in revision 01) to not use the terms PCEPS, for the rea= sons discussed during the WG meeting, unless=20 anyone objects of course. Thanks. JP and Julien.= From nobody Mon Mar 10 16:23:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAD81A0247 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.925 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l4tDTN2Oy-7X for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0631A0232 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so7735084oah.38 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rJ6CAKUvAFM86pX9UmdSkBSq1Eb9rkbaqxDkb79lypc=; b=i4uWrmhflpptI+di/WptDBHQ15F8zxlG7rYvlF6glvmg/oDEfkpmQj+4d2eeFqNGcH piS1ceRFD0djjNhfxdZZQKkn6DOXWiJr1Ha9i5tPe74R7rRWbnDHNEXPNWc6LFocLpRo gYJcCcTwNKWutcakWnmol/Pehb5TAa+/nAZBK9cT8ktIG5TeXYRp6bhscFWeDhdcWaQz 0b4aYtHyU3WKzjfbU4ojhXja27dxXrsyd5g8Ya2QFF2KRkmdmfjnK/nwwPobDOnSxPNL meRPo3quoQEecbIAidN1/kLpTNsKGSXi1ItIgDLhJDk6FKcOitxsYabukkweXWsQnXPs 8ubQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rJ6CAKUvAFM86pX9UmdSkBSq1Eb9rkbaqxDkb79lypc=; b=gBiU12a8Jl8o9QtCjBbdZevXRzg9vepyUk8JbGQ0cx3MGvQFcnaX41Ov6tx4VFPzmP NV6P3sfYhHiv7UJFQqN6HCBXenCg0/v/mooDDIaNz03axWDIPkQHWr6OibhWVxw2vZcZ qk9nqJF+oMVS+V/Yiv3J69/4zypau02ezWMZpPq9zIDpeX/DGH9xlmksdJQ9CZuz5U39 8qtIfCKSbfYvC2njfUPk5kshQs4bflIMTSBAk9MASZeioJtfv6ZbmrXGvSg3SVoSYWFO +XI3Im/s+B41DY3lwUZfRiTu/fjqi3sfmU+2Kt8g8R/Xe3wz9ug8W8xtvC6x+ItPt7mz Y+cQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmF212RY02gDaEjBvbzCryF0iSq6FF1AOdI3jALilnsZYxcIVtPqdpJ7gQ4rQlaDb4JSJpadheuh181wS4OaAt0CZibEZAzVtHnUuAusCpbVpzcMhlMaozOLpU5hBOQCH4C2RQROV2bkuRgOdXCT02+t3isspHq3VjLy8jNM/ZHPb283YkQXn8Um9PD4tBKfswiNchQ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.66.164 with SMTP id g4mr4013397obt.47.1394493780557; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.80.106 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> References: <53161779.4070804@orange.com> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:23:00 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ina Minei To: Julien Meuric Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c35e6e9cef04f448e20e Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/H3Q8mvbFkt7QGkgaHb4oMMr4qLc Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document? X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:23:08 -0000 --089e0160c35e6e9cef04f448e20e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Support as co-author. Ina On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Julien Meuric wrote: > Dear WG, > > As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for > adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item. > > Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting > it as a WG document? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --089e0160c35e6e9cef04f448e20e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support as co-author.

Ina


On Tue, Mar 4, = 2014 at 10:12 AM, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:
Dear WG,

As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for adopt= ing draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item.=

Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you want to justify) of adopting = it as a WG document?

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

--089e0160c35e6e9cef04f448e20e-- From nobody Mon Mar 10 17:32:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22171A066E for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:32:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.147 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mC5lE_NaInYU for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B147D1A064C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBY06742; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:04 +0000 Received: from DFWEML705-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.142) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:47 +0000 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.30]) by dfweml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:31:44 -0700 From: Leeyoung To: Ramon Casellas , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10 Thread-Index: AQHPMhI/Ty1QdVrcrkm0PFTSuXgZ4prbEY7A Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:43 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BCA0DF@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <52EFCBE6.60309@orange.com> <530C6CC1.7020606@cttc.es> In-Reply-To: <530C6CC1.7020606@cttc.es> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.131.38] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3Wc5hIvRwG3c7CXCcTu2gI4oxSw Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:32:01 -0000 Hi Ramon, Thanks for your comments. Please see inline for my response.=20 Regards, Young -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:13 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-1= 0 El 03/02/2014 18:03, Julien Meuric escribi=F3: > Hi all. > > Since many of you are going to dedicate some time to IETF matters over=20 > the upcoming days, here comes some homework. > This message ignites a 2-week WG last call on=20 > draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10. It will end on Monday,=20 > February 17, 11:59 PM (UTC-12). Dear all, A (late) short, fast review of the document below. Feel free to=20 accept/discard at your discretion R. General Comments: * In general, requirements are stated in terms of messages (e.g. PCReq and PCRep) rather than in terms of PCEP requests and responses. IMHO, given tha= t PCReq messages contain svec lists, lists of requests, etc. I would=20 suggest the requirements using the request/response RBNF constructs. For example: OLD The PCReq Message MUST include the path computation type. NEW A PCEP request [for a lighpath within a PCReq message] MUST include the=20 path computation type. YOUNG>> OK. Cyril has a similar request, so I will change with not mentioni= ng protocol specific words.=20 Section 2.1.1 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D I would move the first bullet "1" out of 2.1.1 which is focused on RWA.=20 Requirement "1" is to specify R or RWA Section 2.1.1 then focuses on RWA YOUNG>> Routing only is a part of RWA computation type (as strange as it so= unds).=20 OLD When the PCReq Message is RWA path computation type, the PCReq Message=20 MUST further ... NEW When the request is a RWA path computation type, the request MUST=20 further include ... YOUNG>> OK.=20 - (ii) Non-Explicit labels in the form of Label Sets (This will allow=20 Distributed WA at a node level where each node would select the=20 wavelength from the Label Sets) I am not sure of what Non-Explicit implies here. Maybe change to "a set=20 of recommended labels"... YOUNG>> Yes. I am confused here. If the path computation type is RWA, the Distributed=20 WA does not apply, does it? YOUNG>> RWA :=3D {R&WA, R+WA, R+DWA}. RWA is an overarching term here, not = R&WA only.=20 A new requirement could be added: is a requirement that when the R path=20 computation type is selected the PCE MAY provide a Label Set ? NEW 2.b In case of a R computation type, the response MAY provide [Non-Explicit ?] labels in the form of Label Sets. This will allow Distributed WA at a node level where each node would select the wavelength from the Label Sets. YOUNG>> Not sure if this makes sense. The request is R only, then why would= PCE returns with Wavelength?=20 OLD 3. The PCRep Message MUST include the route, wavelengths assigned to the route and indication of which wavelength assignment option has been applied (ELC or Label Sets). NEW 3. In case of a RWA computation type, the response MUST include the wavelength(s) assigned to the route and an indication of which label assignment option has been applied (ELC or Label Sets). Rationale: the route is implicit by RFC5440 YOUNG>> OK.=20 OLD 4. In the case where a valid path is not found, the PCRep Message MUST include why the path is not found (e.g., no route, wavelength not found, optical quality check failed, etc.) NEW 4. In the case where a valid path is not found, the reponse MUST include why the path is not found (e.g., no route, wavelength not found, optical quality check failed, etc.) YOUNG>> OK.=20 Section 2.1.2 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [Q] Is the possibliity of requesting R bulk requests not a requirement?=20 or is it assumed that existing mechanisms are enough? YOUNG>> Existing mechanism is only for R. Here we are talking about R+WA.=20 Section 2.1.3 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD 1. For a re-optimization request, the PCReq Message MUST provide the path to be re-optimized and include the following options NEW 1. For a re-optimization request, the request MUST provide both the route and current wavelength to be re-optimized and MAY include the following options: a. b. [c is implicit by not including options] YOUNG>> Yes, but including option C is a bit more clearer, isn't it? Section 2.1.4 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD For any PCReq Message that is associated with a request for wavelength assignment the requester (PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. Note that the requestor (PCC) is NOT required to furnish any range restrictions. NEW? For any RWA computation type request, the requester (PCC) MAY specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. Rationale: "MUST be able but is NOT required" YOUNG>> Yes. OK.=20 Section 2.1.5 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD The PCReq Message May include specific operator's policy information for WA (E.g., random assignment, descending order, ascending order, etc.) NEW A RWA computation type request MAY include the requestor preference for WA (E.g., random assignment, descending order, ascending order, etc.). A response SHOULD follow the requestor preference unless operator's policy. Rationale: Change wording? YOUNG>> OK.=20 OLD The PCReq Message SHOULD be able to request, when requesting a 1+1 connection (e.g. link disjoint paths), that both paths use the same wavelength. -> It is not clear to me how to request a 1+1 connection. I think this is an important requirement in itself. In general, what are the=20 requirements regarding protection in PCEP? what about other protection types? YOUNG>> I agree. I will change per Cyril's comment. See my response to Cyri= l, if that would satisfy you.=20 OLD The PCReq Message SHOULD be able to request, when performing 3R, that wavelength may change or not NEW In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g. sparse 3R regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a single, contiguous wavelength should be allocated or not. In other=20 words, the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to constrain the wavelength continuity even if wavelength conversion is available. Rationale: the initial requirement is a bit vague. I am not sure if the intent of he requirement is that? YOUNG>> YES, thanks.=20 Section 2.1.6 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD The PCReq Message MUST be able to specify restrictions for signal compatibility either on the endpoint or any given link. The following signal processing capability should be supported at a minimum: "A request MUST be able to ..." YOUNG>> OK. s/on the endpoint/on the endpoints ? s/capability/capabilities ? YOUNG>> OK. Notes: Not sure about the "any given link". It may be good to be more verbose on this requirement. Relationship with IRO? YOUNG>> What I meant to say was signal processing capabilities can apply bo= th to endpoints and links on the path.=20 Section 3 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3. Manageability Considerations Nothing is said regarding session parameters on a PCE: o Policy regarding WA algorithms: first-fit, random... o Whether to use Explicit Label Control or not ... YOUNG>> Not sure if this is needed. If so, please suggest some texts.=20 Final comments =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - Nothing is said about bidirectional LSPs. It seems that being able to compute a bi-directional LSP with the additional constraint of having the same upstream and downtream wavelength would be IMHO a requirement. YOUNG>> It is assumed bidirectional LSPs.=20 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Mon Mar 10 17:32:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74071A064C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:32:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.146 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N66JrHJ1Yeme for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1649F1A0670 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBY06746; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:12 +0000 Received: from DFWEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.130) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:56 +0000 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.30]) by dfweml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.106]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:31:43 -0700 From: Leeyoung To: Cyril Margaria , Julien Meuric Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10 Thread-Index: AQHPLMaeTy1QdVrcrkm0PFTSuXgZ4prGgJ2AgBSQtfA= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:31:42 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BCA0D8@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> References: <52EFCBE6.60309@orange.com> <53038A25.4090506@orange.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.131.38] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BCA0D8dfweml706chmchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/gvH6RMrsQzbHt4-0mUPDxa62eaU Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:32:07 -0000 --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BCA0D8dfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Cyril, Thanks for providing your comment. Please see inline for my response. Regards, Young From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cyril Margaria Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:04 AM To: Julien Meuric Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-1= 0 Hi PCErs, I have a few comments on the document: Section 1.1 : Strange indentation YOUNG>> I will look into that. indentation: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The indentation of the following section is not consistent: Section 1.1 Section 2.1 Section 2.1.1 Section 3.1 Section 3.2 ... YOUNG>> I will look into that. Section 2.1.1 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Is there a requierement for RWA-capable PCE discovery? IGP-based discovery is addressed in section 3.5, but OPEN extension could a= lso be covered. A PCC expecting RWA-capable PCE will only be able to detect a non RWA capab= le upon request. It is likely that request are not very frequent in WSON networks, so a misc= onfiguration may be discovered quite late. OPEN extension would allow a faster detection. YOUNG>> PCE discovery is not a requirement, but can be considered as an op= tion. What is OPEN extension? I can add if you want the reference info in S= ection 3.5. In WSON environment, RWA-capable PCE discovery can be configure= d instead of depending on discovery mechanisms, IMHO. Req 2) : I believe ii) is not only for D-RWA, but also covers RWA. OLD: (i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003] (ii) Non-Explicit labels in the form of Label Sets (This will allow Distributed WA at a node level where each node would select the wavelength from the Label Sets) NEW: (i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003]. (ii) Non-Explicit labels in the form of Label Sets. The PCC can select= the label based on local policy. Note that option ii) may also be used in R+WA or DWA. YOUNG>> Agree. Will change. Section 2.1.2 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Is it possible to mix in a bulk request, R and RWA requests? YOUNG>> Not sure what the mixed bulk requests achieve. GCO [RFC 5557] addre= sses the bulk request for R. Section 2.1.4 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D OLD For any PCReq Message that is associated with a request for wavelength assignment the requester (PCC) MUST be able to specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. NEW For a RWA request, the request MUST be able to specify an option for a restriction on the wavelengths to be used. The requester MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wavelenght fo= r Explict Label or Label Sets. YOUNG>> accepted. -- This is more in line with the rest of the document. The req being on the p= rotocol, not involving the PCC is better. OLD Note that the requestor (PCC) is NOT required to furnish any range restrictions. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser transmitter. NEW Note that the requestor is NOT required to furnish any range restrictions. This restriction may for example come from the tuning ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an policy based = restriction. YOUNG>> How about the following: Note that the requestor (e.g., PCC) is NOT required to furnish any range restrictions. This restriction may for example come from the tuning ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an policy based = restriction. -- The PCE should not interpret the restriction, just apply it. Section 2.1.5 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D in "The PCReq Message May include specific operator's policy", do you mean = MAY? YOUNG>> Yes. The section could be renamed "Wavelength assignement policy constraints" YOUNG>> Good suggestion, Will change. The explicit label versus Label set could also fit in this section, or sect= ion 2.1.1 req 2 should refer to this section. YOUNG>> In Section 2.1.1, req 2 will refer to Section 2.1.5 for this requir= ement. OLD The PCReq Message SHOULD be able to request, when requesting a 1+1 connection (e.g. link disjoint paths), that both paths use the same wavelength. NEW A request for 2 or more path MUST be able to specify an option constraini= ng the path to have the same wavelength(s) assigned. YOUNG>> NEW: A request for 2 or more path (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths) MUST be able= to specify an option constraining the path to have the same wavelength(s) = assigned. -- Computing a 1+1 path is one use case, but this may apply for other protect= ion type. This can be achieved by removing the protection aspect. YOUNG>> I put as an example in the above suggestion. Section 2.1.6 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D NEW o OIC list YOUNG>> I think OIC is a solution for signal compatibility for FEC and Modu= lation. As a requirement, I think the current text is fine. -- draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-21 defines the concept of OIC, PCEP should be abl= e to transport the same kind of info YOUNG>> Agree, as a solution, but not as a requirement. Best regards, Cyril On 18 February 2014 17:28, Julien Meuric > wrote: Hi all. This last call has ended. We have not seen many reviews. The chairs' will c= ome soon. JP & Julien Feb. 03, 2014 - Julien Meuric: Hi all. Since many of you are going to dedicate some time to IETF matters over the = upcoming days, here comes some homework. This message ignites a 2-week WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-w= avelength-10. It will end on Monday, February 17, 11:59 PM (UTC-12). Thanks, JP & Julien _______________________________________________ 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 --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BCA0D8dfweml706chmchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Cyril,

 <= /p>

Thanks for providing your= comment. Please see inline for my response.

 <= /p>

Regards,

Young

 <= /p>

From: Pce [mai= lto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cyril Margaria
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:04 AM
To: Julien Meuric
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavel= ength-10

 

Hi PCErs, =

I have a few comments= on the document:


Section 1.1 : Strange indentation<= /span>

 <= /p>

YOUNG>> I will look= into that.




indentation:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The indentation of the following section is not consistent:

Section 1.1
Section 2.1
Section 2.1.1
Section 3.1

Section 3.2
... 

 

YOUNG>> I will look= into that.




Section 2.1.1
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Is there a requierement for RWA-capable PCE discovery?
IGP-based discovery is addressed in section 3.5, but OPEN extension could a= lso be covered.

A PCC expecting RWA-capable PCE will only be able to= detect a non RWA capable upon request.

It is likely that request are not very frequent in W= SON networks, so a misconfiguration may be discovered quite late.

OPEN extension would = allow a faster detection.

YOUNG>>  PCE discovery is not a requirement, but can be= considered as an option. What is OPEN extension? I can add if you want the= reference info in Section 3.5. In WSON environment, RWA-capable PCE discovery can be configured instead of depending on discov= ery mechanisms, IMHO.

Req 2) : I believe ii) is not only for D-RWA, but also covers RWA.
OLD:
     (i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003]

     (ii)    Non-Explicit labels in the = form of Label Sets (This will
            allow Di= stributed WA at a node level where each node would
            select t= he wavelength from the Label Sets)

NEW:
     (i)  Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003].<= br>
     (ii) Non-Explicit labels in the form of Label Sets= . The PCC can select the label based on local policy.

   Note that option ii) may also be used in R+WA or DWA.

YOUNG>> Agree. Will change. =


Section 2.1.2
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

  Is it possible to mix in a bulk request, R and RWA requests?

 

YOUNG>> Not sure what the mixed bulk requests achieve. GCO [RFC= 5557] addresses the bulk request for R.



Section 2.1.4
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


OLD
   For any PCReq Message that is associated with a request for    wavelength assignment the requester (PCC) MUST be able to spec= ify a
   restriction on the wavelengths to be used.
NEW
   For a RWA request, the request MUST be able to specify an opti= on for
   a restriction on the wavelengths to be used.
   The requester MAY use this option to restrict the assigned wav= elenght for
   Explict Label or Label Sets.

YOUNG>>  accepted.


--
 This is more in line with the rest of the document. The req being on = the protocol, not involving the PCC is better.

 



OLD
   Note that the requestor (PCC) is NOT required to furnish any r= ange
   restrictions. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE= as a
   constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser
   transmitter.

NEW
   Note that the requestor is NOT required to furnish any range    restrictions. This restriction may for example come from the t= uning
   ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an pol= icy based restriction.

YOUNG>>  How about the following:

Note that the request= or (e.g., PCC) is NOT required to furnish any range
   restrictions. This restriction may for example come from the t= uning
   ability of a laser transmitter, any optical element, or an pol= icy based restriction.


--
 The PCE should not interpret the restriction, just apply it.

Section 2.1.5
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

in "The PCReq Message May include specific operator's policy", do= you mean MAY?

YOUNG>> Yes.



The section could be renamed "Wavelength assignement policy constraint= s"

YOUNG>> Good suggestion, Will change.



The explicit label versus Label set could also fit in this section, or sect= ion 2.1.1 req 2 should refer to this section.=

 

YOUNG>> In Section 2.1.1, req 2 will refer to Section 2.1.5 for= this requirement.



OLD
  The PCReq Message SHOULD be able to request, when requesting a 1+= ;1
  connection (e.g. link disjoint paths), that both paths use the same<= br>   wavelength.
NEW
  A request for 2 or more path MUST be able to specify an option const= raining the path to have the same wavelength(s) assigned.

YOUNG>>

NEW:

  A request for = 2 or more path (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths) MUST be able to specify = an option constraining the path to have the same wavelength(s) assigned.




--
 Computing a 1+1 path is one use case, but this may apply for othe= r protection type. This can be achieved by removing the protection aspect.<= span style=3D"color:#1F497D">

YOUNG>> I put as an example in the above suggestion.



Section 2.1.6
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

NEW
      o OIC list

 

YOUNG>> I think OIC is a solution for signal compatibility for = FEC and Modulation. As a requirement, I think the current text is fine.



--

draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-21 defines the concept of OIC, PCEP should be abl= e to transport the same kind of info

YOUNG>> Agree, as a solution, but not as a requirement.



Best regards,
Cyril

 

 

On 18 February 2014 17:28, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange= .com> wrote:

Hi all.

This last call has ended. We have not seen many reviews. The chairs' will c= ome soon.

JP & Julien


Feb. 03, 2014 - Julien Meuric:

 

Hi all.

Since many of you are going to dedicate some time to IETF matters over the = upcoming days, here comes some homework.

This message ignites a 2-week WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-w= avelength-10. It will end on Monday, February 17, 11:59 PM (UTC-12).

Thanks,

JP & Julien

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce


_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

 

--_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BCA0D8dfweml706chmchi_-- From nobody Tue Mar 11 03:45:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBED41A040E; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 03:45:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H_vdUhiEXNtJ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 03:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583ED1A041C; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 03:45:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.1.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140311104506.28070.24190.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 03:45:06 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/k0uc3jqeMl7kEC3vn9FXAM_6A0g Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:45:08 -0000 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 : Secure Transport for PCEP Authors : Diego R. Lopez Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Qin Wu Dhruv Dhody Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2014-03-11 Abstract: The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describe the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to enhance PCEP security, hence the PCEPS acronym proposed for it. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP, and therefore they do not affect its flexibility and extensibility. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Mar 11 07:57:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8613D1A074D for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:57:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JVOLP6evIi2s for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tidos.tid.es (tidos.tid.es [195.235.93.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25A41A0735 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet [10.95.64.104]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N2A00N7Q1JU29@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from dequeue_removeroute (tid.hi.inet [10.95.64.10]) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E8.BF.03314.A542F135; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N2A00N7M1JU29@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS8-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::41c8:e965:8a6:de67%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:30 +0100 Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:57:28 +0000 From: "Diego R. Lopez" In-reply-to: <28525BD4-613D-45F5-AA20-B04FAF292338@cisco.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Message-id: <27FDB4E9-E460-4E59-B938-672C6F4D6C6C@tid.es> Content-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: en-US, es-ES Thread-topic: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document Thread-index: AQHPPLaBv2T7MDfHD0SKWK0Dh1RFWJrb6j6A X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7fe58e000000cf2-82-531f245ab2f7 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhinfg0o1SkQ82uPVX2aLp/g12B0aPJUt+ MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlzL5yhq3gjkhF0+0j7A2MM0S6GDk5JARMJHbevsUOYYtJXLi3 nq2LkYtDSOAAo8SRs7PZIZyvjBK35/9ghXA2MEo8XdjGCNLCIqAqsXfdbmYQmw3IftT8G2yU sECoxLaZ68FqOAVsJf7t62WBWKEg8efcYzBbRMBAovXqNKChHBzMAooS727zgoR5BSwlDi/f wwRiMwuYSfyfcYoJIi4o8WPyPRaIcnWJKVNyIUrEJZpbb7JA2IoS0xY1gG1lFJCVeDd/PivE pjCJ5smHoLYaSTTtmMQGcY2AxJI955khbFGJl4//gdULCdhIzJlxnGkCo8QsJFfMQnLFLIQr ZiG5YhaSKxYwsq5iFCtOKspMzyjJTczMSTcw1MvI1MvMSy3ZxAiJuYwdjMt3qhxiFOBgVOLh bRCSChZiTSwrrsw9xCjBwawkwpssLh8sxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgdGmTCs2kd+v 9fvayXd/6xepfro+t1NqkcdPNq1zNWHTC3hKU/lztigGFu0rXDv36nLnZ/JlsWuULzGoGTBY HM41Tb+syNPuZP3lkrXd6ZDUl+eXFdX8ak5JKj+QyCVf6hXiHld3up/p+6oFu36uvsrhfych ssbBusnmkafVm5g5evHrXN4qKbEUZyQaajEXFScCAEBVHsqXAgAA References: <28525BD4-613D-45F5-AA20-B04FAF292338@cisco.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/HCyT8Fc466Iz-Lnh32i8fJd9ZJk Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:57:39 -0000 SGksDQoNClRoZSBkcmFmdCBoYXMgYmVlbiBqdXN0IHJlLXN1Ym1pdHRlZCBhcyBkcmFmdC1pZXRm LXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0wMC4NCg0KV2hpbGUgaW4gTG9uZG9uLCBJIGFza2VkIHRoZSBUcmFuc3BvcnQg QXJlYSBBRHMgb24gdGhlIHJpZ2h0IGdyb3VwIHRvIGFkZHJlc3Mgb24gdGhlIFRDUCBpc3N1ZXMg aW4gdGhlIGRyYWZ0LCBhbmQgdGhleSBwb2ludCBtZSB0byBUQ1BNLiBJJ2xsIGNlcnRhaW5seSBz aGFyZSB0aGUgb3V0Y29tZSBvZiB0aGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gd2l0aCB0aGUgZ3JvdXAuDQoNClJl Z2FyZGluZyB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSB0ZXJtIFBDRVBTIEknZCBsaWtlIHRvIHNlZSB3aGF0IGFy ZSB0aGUgb3RoZXIgYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzIGZvciBhbiBhY3JvbnltIG9mIHRoZSBhcHByb2FjaCwg YW5kIHRoZSBjb25zZW5zdXMgd2UgY2FuIHJlYWNoIG9uIHRoZW0uIEFwYXJ0IGZyb20gUENFUFMs IEkgZ3Vlc3MgUENFUC1TIG9yIFBDRVAtVExTIHdvdWxkIGRvLi4uDQoNCkJlIGdvb2RlLA0KDQpP biAxMSBNYXIgMjAxNCwgYXQgMDA6MTQsIEpQIFZhc3NldXIgKGp2YXNzZXVyKSA8anZhc3NldXJA Y2lzY28uY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBEZWFyIFdHLA0KPg0KPiBXZSBoYWQgYSBjbGVhciBjb25z ZW5zdXMgdG8gYWRvcHQgZHJhZnQtbG9wZXotcGNlLXBjZXBzLTAyIGFzIFBDRSBXRyBEb2N1bWVu dCBhcyBhIFBDRSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudC4NCj4gQXV0aG9ycywgcGxlYXNlIHJlLXN1Ym1pdCBhcyBk cmFmdC1pZXRmLXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0wMCB3aXRoIG5vIGNoYW5nZSBvdGhlciB0aGFuIGRvY3VtZW50 IG5hbWUsIHRpdGxlIGFuZCBkYXRlcy4NCj4NCj4gVHdvIGNvbW1lbnRzOg0KPiAxKSBBcyBkaXNj dXNzZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBXRyBtZWV0aW5nLCBwbGVhc2Ugc2hhcmUgd2l0aCB0aGUgbWFpbGlu ZyBsaXN0IHRoZSBzdGF0dXMgb2YgeW91ciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHdpdGggdGhlIGV4cGVydHMNCj4g ZnJvbSB0aGUgdHJhbnNwb3J0IGFyZWENCj4gMikgSSB3b3VsZCBzdWdnZXN0IChpbiByZXZpc2lv biAwMSkgdG8gbm90IHVzZSB0aGUgdGVybXMgUENFUFMsIGZvciB0aGUgcmVhc29ucyBkaXNjdXNz ZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBXRyBtZWV0aW5nLCB1bmxlc3MNCj4gYW55b25lIG9iamVjdHMgb2YgY291 cnNlLg0KPg0KPiBUaGFua3MuDQo+DQo+IEpQIGFuZCBKdWxpZW4uDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IFBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4g UGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNl DQoNCg0KLS0NCiJFc3RhIHZleiBubyBmYWxsYXJlbW9zLCBEb2N0b3IgSW5maWVybm8iDQoNCkRy IERpZWdvIFIuIExvcGV6DQpUZWxlZm9uaWNhIEkrRA0KaHR0cDovL3Blb3BsZS50aWQuZXMvZGll Z28ubG9wZXovDQoNCmUtbWFpbDogZGllZ29AdGlkLmVzDQpUZWw6ICAgICszNCA5MTMgMTI5IDA0 MQ0KTW9iaWxlOiArMzQgNjgyIDA1MSAwOTENCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRXN0 ZSBtZW5zYWplIHNlIGRpcmlnZSBleGNsdXNpdmFtZW50ZSBhIHN1IGRlc3RpbmF0YXJpby4gUHVl ZGUgY29uc3VsdGFyIG51ZXN0cmEgcG9sw610aWNhIGRlIGVudsOtbyB5IHJlY2VwY2nDs24gZGUg Y29ycmVvIGVsZWN0csOzbmljbyBlbiBlbCBlbmxhY2Ugc2l0dWFkbyBtw6FzIGFiYWpvLg0KVGhp cyBtZXNzYWdlIGlzIGludGVuZGVkIGV4Y2x1c2l2ZWx5IGZvciBpdHMgYWRkcmVzc2VlLiBXZSBv bmx5IHNlbmQgYW5kIHJlY2VpdmUgZW1haWwgb24gdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9mIHRoZSB0ZXJtcyBzZXQg b3V0IGF0Og0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy50aWQuZXMvRVMvUEFHSU5BUy9kaXNjbGFpbWVyLmFzcHgNCg== From nobody Tue Mar 11 11:13:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81321A0796 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:13:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nyhkwxe6kJcR for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3lp0083.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3D91A0773 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from AMXPRD0111HT004.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (157.56.250.117) by DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.893.10; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:12:42 +0000 Message-ID: <037a01cf3d54$be532160$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: "Diego R. Lopez" , "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" References: <28525BD4-613D-45F5-AA20-B04FAF292338@cisco.com> <27FDB4E9-E460-4E59-B938-672C6F4D6C6C@tid.es> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:07:09 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [157.56.250.117] X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPR07CA010.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.77.178) To DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.151) X-Forefront-PRVS: 0147E151B5 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: =?utf-8?B?U0ZWOk5TUE07U0ZTOigxMDAwOTAwMSkoNjAwOTAwMSkoNDI4MDAxKSgyNTI1?= =?utf-8?B?MTQwMTApKDE5OTAwMikoMTg5MDAyKSgyNDQ1NDAwMikoMzc3NDU0MDAzKSgx?= =?utf-8?B?MzQ2NDAwMykoNTE3MDQwMDUpKDQ3NDQ2MDAyKSg3NDUwMjAwMSkoODU4NTIw?= =?utf-8?B?MDMpKDgzMDcyMDAyKSg3Njc5NjAwMSkoNTE4NTYwMDEpKDg1MzA2MDAyKSg3?= =?utf-8?B?NzA5NjAwMSkoNTY4MTYwMDUpKDUzODA2MDAxKSg0NjEwMjAwMSkoNzcxNTYw?= =?utf-8?B?MDEpKDE5NTgwMzk1MDAzKSg0MjE4NjAwNCkoODc5NzYwMDEpKDg3MjY2MDAx?= =?utf-8?B?KSg2Mjk2NjAwMikoNzY0ODIwMDEpKDg3Mjg2MDAxKSg0NzczNjAwMSkoNzc5?= =?utf-8?B?ODIwMDEpKDc0NzA2MDAxKSg1OTc2NjAwMSkoNTY3NzYwMDEpKDYxMjk2MDAy?= =?utf-8?B?KSgxNTIwMjM0NTAwMykoNTQzMTYwMDIpKDYyMjM2MDAyKSg3NDY2MjAwMSko?= =?utf-8?B?ODQzOTIwMDEpKDk0MzE2MDAyKSg0NDcxNjAwMikoOTAxNDYwMDEpKDc0MzY2?= =?utf-8?B?MDAxKSg0OTg2NjAwMSkoODA5NzYwMDEpKDc2Nzg2MDAxKSg5NDk0NjAwMSko?= =?utf-8?B?MjM2NzYwMDIpKDkzOTE2MDAyKSgzMzY0NjAwMSkoNDc3NzYwMDMpKDc0ODc2?= =?utf-8?B?MDAxKSg5MzUxNjAwMikoNjkyMjYwMDEpKDg2MzYyMDAxKSg0Mzk2MDAxKSg5?= =?utf-8?B?NTY2NjAwMykoODMzMjIwMDEpKDE5NTgwNDA1MDAxKSg5NzE4NjAwMSkoMTQ0?= =?utf-8?B?OTYwMDEpKDYzNjk2MDAyKSg5MjU2NjAwMSkoMTU5NzU0NDUwMDYpKDg4MTM2?= =?utf-8?B?MDAyKSg4OTk5NjAwMSkoMzE5NjYwMDgpKDY1ODE2MDAxKSg1MDIyNjAwMSko?= =?utf-8?B?NDQ3MzYwMDQpKDUwOTg2MDAxKSg0Nzk3NjAwMSkoOTczMzYwMDEpKDgwMDIy?= =?utf-8?B?MDAxKSg5MjcyNjAwMSkoODEzNDIwMDEpKDk1NDE2MDAxKSg3OTEwMjAwMSko?= =?utf-8?B?OTMxMzYwMDEpKDgxNTQyMDAxKSg1MDQ2NjAwMikoNjYwNjYwMDEpKDc0NDE2?= =?utf-8?B?MDAxKSg3NzI2MDAxKTtESVI6T1VUO1NGUDoxMTAxO1NDTDoxO1NSVlI6REIz?= =?utf-8?B?UFIwN01CMDYwO0g6QU1YUFJEMDExMUhUMDA0LmV1cnByZDAxLnByb2QuZXhj?= =?utf-8?B?aGFuZ2VsYWJzLmNvbTtDTElQOjE1Ny41Ni4yNTAuMTE3O0ZQUjo3Q0Q1RjlG?= =?utf-8?B?NC5BRkMwQkZFQS4zREQxMTJCNi44NEVEODE3Qi4yMDM0MztQVFI6SW5mb05v?= =?utf-8?Q?Records;A:0;MX:1;LANG:en;?= Received-SPF: None (: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/KkSE_5hY-GXgZ07536ejqaY43mc Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:13:01 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diego R. Lopez" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:57 PM > > The draft has been just re-submitted as draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00. > > While in London, I asked the Transport Area ADs on the right group to address on the TCP issues in the draft, and they point me to TCPM. I'll certainly share the outcome of this discussion with the group. > > Regarding the use of the term PCEPS I'd like to see what are the other alternatives for an acronym of the approach, and the consensus we can reach on them. Apart from PCEPS, I guess PCEP-S or PCEP-TLS would do... I like PCEPS - that format has plenty of precedents in the IETF. Tom Petch > > Be goode, > > On 11 Mar 2014, at 00:14, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrote: > > > Dear WG, > > > > We had a clear consensus to adopt draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document as a PCE WG document. > > Authors, please re-submit as draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00 with no change other than document name, title and dates. > > > > Two comments: > > 1) As discussed during the WG meeting, please share with the mailing list the status of your discussion with the experts > > from the transport area > > 2) I would suggest (in revision 01) to not use the terms PCEPS, for the reasons discussed during the WG meeting, unless > > anyone objects of course. > > > > Thanks. > > > > JP and Julien. > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > -- > "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" > > Dr Diego R. Lopez > Telefonica I+D > http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ > > e-mail: diego@tid.es > Tel: +34 913 129 041 > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > ----------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > From nobody Tue Mar 11 18:03:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780601A08B7; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id acCA84N6Jzoy; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640AD1A08B2; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:03:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.1.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140312010349.8417.35834.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:03:49 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/EaO3yx16LPGueYSejB1FFrGGLBg Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:03:51 -0000 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 : PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment Authors : Young Lee Greg Bernstein Jonas Martensson Tomonori Takeda Takehiro Tsuritani Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Filename : draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2014-03-11 Abstract: This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation. Requirements for Optical impairments will be addressed in a separate document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Mar 11 18:09:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF8C1A08AF for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:09:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HPROcggTIVSW for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA21E1A08B3 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBZ08142; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:09:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:08:42 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.50) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:09:28 +0000 Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.30]) by dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.118]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:09:19 -0700 From: Leeyoung To: Ramon Casellas , Cyril Margaria Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt Thread-Index: AQHPPY7x4raxefIZKEa5D/LzVA7s15rcoz1A Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:09:18 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BCA582@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.133.82] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ALLfa5-9F_PjCs0XDa56QMfoBlM Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:09:41 -0000 Hi Ramon and Cyril, Thanks for providing valuable comments that improved clarity and readabilit= y of the draft. Let me know if this update is good to go or still needs further refinements= .=20 Regards, Young -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.o= rg Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:04 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of= the IETF. Title : PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength= Assignment Authors : Young Lee Greg Bernstein Jonas Martensson Tomonori Takeda Takehiro Tsuritani Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Filename : draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2014-03-11 Abstract: This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation. Requirements for Optical impairments will be addressed in a separate document. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-1= 1 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 12 03:27:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281F21A0948 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YgB3k0vR3l3W for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1951A094F for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:27:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2238; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394620021; x=1395829621; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+O3Bgr1+qUYy9p+PI+8POy0ChOuogLIDT7MiaNk2saY=; b=AWweTAe4QO2utA0Z9SBsDIP0VqWlxIOx73952k6XwILI3qy86V7R/2lN JbIc6VCI88ebS9ZXz02QfmiXbSYHUkuKobeVDGfNpNrjD7JBrObGTxq6y uaepwKgzWG9p3hGNV7NH3H+uEi9ddJySuCBHYdv5rdKmTflj+lkQcxaAN 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAJc1IFOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V7ojhy6BGhZ0giUBAQEDAQEBAWgDEAsCAQgYLicLJQIEARKHcQgN0VgXjXoOAwEdOoMkgRQEiRmPLIEykHuDLYFyOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,636,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="309763234" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2014 10:27:00 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2CAR0jj026752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:27:00 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.166]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 05:27:00 -0500 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: "pce@ietf.org" , "Diego R. Lopez" Thread-Topic: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document Thread-Index: AQHPPd2ZvFrzTJcgiUiN5oRduk1Meg== Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:26:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <28525BD4-613D-45F5-AA20-B04FAF292338@cisco.com> <27FDB4E9-E460-4E59-B938-672C6F4D6C6C@tid.es> In-Reply-To: <27FDB4E9-E460-4E59-B938-672C6F4D6C6C@tid.es> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.87.184] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <723125F80E0C804F8AA70527422E4240@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/00ne8kmufX4LOcb2fewCdxZuwRw Subject: Re: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:27:12 -0000 WG, any preference for the name - I would personally go for PCEP-TLS On Mar 11, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Diego R. Lopez wrote: > Hi, >=20 > The draft has been just re-submitted as draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00. >=20 > While in London, I asked the Transport Area ADs on the right group to add= ress on the TCP issues in the draft, and they point me to TCPM. I'll certai= nly share the outcome of this discussion with the group. >=20 > Regarding the use of the term PCEPS I'd like to see what are the other al= ternatives for an acronym of the approach, and the consensus we can reach o= n them. Apart from PCEPS, I guess PCEP-S or PCEP-TLS would do... >=20 > Be goode, >=20 > On 11 Mar 2014, at 00:14, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) wrot= e: >=20 >> Dear WG, >>=20 >> We had a clear consensus to adopt draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Doc= ument as a PCE WG document. >> Authors, please re-submit as draft-ietf-pce-pceps-00 with no change othe= r than document name, title and dates. >>=20 >> Two comments: >> 1) As discussed during the WG meeting, please share with the mailing lis= t the status of your discussion with the experts >> from the transport area >> 2) I would suggest (in revision 01) to not use the terms PCEPS, for the = reasons discussed during the WG meeting, unless >> anyone objects of course. >>=20 >> Thanks. >>=20 >> JP and Julien. >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >=20 >=20 > -- > "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" >=20 > Dr Diego R. Lopez > Telefonica I+D > http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ >=20 > e-mail: diego@tid.es > Tel: +34 913 129 041 > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > ----------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 > ________________________________ >=20 > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar = nuestra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el e= nlace situado m=E1s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and = receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From nobody Wed Mar 12 18:25:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603F31A080A; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HCbGk1ibt86q; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D194E1A07FB; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:25:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.1.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140313012545.17843.30402.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:25:45 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/SAkSdSoOKaZqEDhily8lU2EuF_s Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:25:47 -0000 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 : Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE Authors : Edward Crabbe Jan Medved Ina Minei Robert Varga Xian Zhang Dhruv Dhody Filename : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-00.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2014-03-12 Abstract: A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a reliable state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE and path computation clients (PCCs), and between cooperating PCEs. The basic mechanism for state synchronization is part of the stateful PCE specification. This draft presents motivations for optimizations to the base state synchronization procedure and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Mar 13 10:17:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84F81A0A23 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I4ZYRM3ZOe-J for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8271A0499 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N2D00DLVXCLFX@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:17:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id C1.3A.05896.418E1235; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:17:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0N2D00ANCXCKAG@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:17:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS6-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:17:08 +0100 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:17:08 +0000 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= In-reply-to: <5321D570.60008@isi.edu> To: "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: <9D02BDCB-AD4A-4002-8B0C-DCCE0AEA8997@tid.es> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ajgmanwwPjSc1uF2ETllJw)" Content-language: es-ES Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [tcpm] Looking for advice on a draft from the PCE working group Thread-index: AQHPPSQOPWN7uGul1keGON95aVpVwJrca5MAgAJZJ4CAAFohAIAAJvzW X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f778e000001708-0e-5321e814516d X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqCv6QjHYYNc6Y4um+zfYHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVMeHlLcaCt2YVL7c/Y21gnKXfxcjBISFgInHmhmMXIyeQKSZx 4d56ti5GLg4hgW2MEsd/nGADSQgJfGOUuHXaASIxjVFiTfNSJpAEi4CqRNf6PhYQm03AQWLd ol6wBmEBX4ljb3+D1XAC1Vz4vIMRxBYRUJT4fmM1WA2vgKXEgkd7GCFsQYkfk++xgBzELBAt cbZfCyTMLCAuMefXRFYQm1FAVmLl+dNQY3wlju/9ygZhu0mc+/yTBeIBAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f /2OFuHkvo8SyL1eYJjCKzEKybhbCullI1kHYehI3pk5hg7C1JZYtfM0MYetKzPh3iAVZfAEj +ypGseKkosz0jJLcxMycdAMjvYxMvcy81JJNjJAYytzBuHynyiFGAQ5GJR7eBiGpYCHWxLLi ytxDjBIczEoivDKXFYOFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MLYL/rp1fV5e6ASOfzYztgsJ 33coZJx7f46Y8abODzlHjq5OVl2r/Gbq1X2uutnSDxwm+6fPXnXv8d2vlUffZthOf3gw3uZo SHf2EkObJVmeB6QuzK84VVQ/9X/h4hCe3Jn7V0+x/yxuGL3ab43IvWdGWu6rUjvmd3QLh/VP l96mMe/wHYfoIh0lluKMREMt5qLiRACSvCPCfwIAAA== References: <531F918C.2080700@isi.edu> <5321D570.60008@isi.edu> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/S5PUhvf7D8DWMZNh3xoO_ojmwnk Subject: [Pce] Fwd: [tcpm] Looking for advice on a draft from the PCE working group X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:17:21 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_ajgmanwwPjSc1uF2ETllJw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable FYI Enviado desde mi iPad Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: Joe Touch > Fecha: 13 de marzo de 2014 16:57:36 GMT+1 Reenviado-Por: >, >, >, > Para: Qin Wu >, "Diego R. Lop= ez" >, "tcpm@ietf.org" > Cc: "draft-ietf-pce-pceps@tools.ietf.org" > Asunto: Re: [tcpm] Looking for advice on a draft from the PCE working group Hi, Qin, On 3/13/2014 3:35 AM, Qin Wu wrote: Hi, Joe: It is still not clear to me when we choose the same port and when we choose the different port if we apply TLS to different protocols, It's simple to determine: - if you designed your service before STARTTLS, then you needed a separate port - if you are designing your port now, you don't Take SMTP, POP3,IMAP as examples: ... It looks to me when we apply SSL to SMTP,POP3,IMAP, then SMTP, POP3 and IMAP with SSL support(i.e.,SMTPS,POP3S,IMAPS) Will usually choose the different ports. The same rule above is also applied to HTTP when we apply SSL to HTTP(i.e., HTTPS). All of the above are good examples of the first part of the rule. Note that we have other assignments that now would be declined, because we'= ve learned to do better. E.g., there would not be a POP2 or POP3 because we= would expect POP to indicate the protocol version in-band. We also no long= er assign multiple names for the same service, as was done for http/www, no= r do we now assign multiple ports for the same service (80, 8080), nor do w= e now assign ports for development purposes (http-dev). We've learned to do better. Joe ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx --Boundary_(ID_ajgmanwwPjSc1uF2ETllJw) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
FYI

Enviado desde mi iPad

Inicio del mensaje reenviado:

De: Joe Touch <touch@isi.ed= u>
Fecha: 13 de marzo de 2014 16:57:36 GMT+1
Reenviado-Por: <dhruv.iet= f@gmail.com>, <diego@tid.es&g= t;, <ogondio@tid.es>, <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Para: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawe= i.com>, "Diego R. Lopez" <diego@tid.es>, "tcpm@ietf.o= rg" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Cc: "dra= ft-ietf-pce-pceps@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pceps@tools.ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: [tcpm] Looking for advice on a draft from the PCE wor= king group

Hi, Qin,

On 3/13/2014 3:35 AM, Qin Wu wrote:
Hi, Joe:

It is still not clear to me when we choose = the same port and when we
choose the different port if we apply TLS t= o different protocols,

It's simple to determine:

   - if you designed your service before STARTTLS, then you= needed
   a separate port

   - if you are designing your port now, you don't
Take SMTP, POP3,IMAP as examples:
...
It looks to me when we apply SSL to SMTP,PO= P3,IMAP, then SMTP, POP3 and
IMAP with SSL support(i.e.,SMTPS,POP3S,IMAP= S)

Will usually choose the different ports.

The same rule above is also applied to HTTP= when we apply SSL to
HTTP(i.e., HTTPS).

All of the above are good examples of the first part of the rule.

Note that we have other assignments that now would be declined, becau= se we've learned to do better. E.g., there would not be a POP2 or POP3 beca= use we would expect POP to indicate the protocol version in-band. We also n= o longer assign multiple names for the same service, as was done for http/www, nor do we now assign multiple = ports for the same service (80, 8080), nor do we now assign ports for devel= opment purposes  (http-dev).

We've learned to do better.

Joe



Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
 --Boundary_(ID_ajgmanwwPjSc1uF2ETllJw)-- From nobody Fri Mar 14 06:54:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B70E1A014F for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:54:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Amk-SyBPqEjB for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD47D1A014E for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N2F00MSDIMA80@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:54:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 3D.69.05896.20A03235; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:54:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0N2F00MS7IMA80@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:54:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.84]) by EX10-HTCAS8-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::41c8:e965:8a6:de67%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:54:09 +0100 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:54:09 +0000 From: Victor Lopez In-reply-to: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F1AF800@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: Uma Chunduri , Pce Message-id: Content-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted-01.txt Thread-index: AQHPP4zffKz9jtgWREagMVeVnVnS5A== user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f778e000001708-61-53230a021b85 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupgkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhivcz1GXiUg42eHNMyaLp/g12B0aPJUt+ MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlfHn+ibngvFLFzRVt7A2Mq2W6GDk5JARMJI527mGDsMUkLtxb D2RzcQgJbGOUONK3mRnC+cYocWFDMwuEs4FR4uXsA+wgLSwCqhLXH75mAbHZBJQkNmyDGCUs ECqxccUHVhCbU8BPYtX+vUwQKxQk/px7DFYvIuAgMb21hRnE5hXQkpjy8yxYL7OAmUTP7XPs EHFBiR+T77FAxHUker9/Y4awxSXm/JrICmFrSzx5dwHMZhSQlVh5/jQjxPwwie7TP6FsPYlV 95eBzREFsu89mssCcY+AxJI955khbFGJl4//sUI8uYxR4tzV18wTGCVmIblpFpKbZiG5aRaS m2YhuWkBI+sqRrHipKLM9IyS3MTMnHQDI72MTL3MvNSSTYyQ2Mvcwbh8p8ohRgEORiUeXg9R pWAh1sSy4srcQ4wSHMxKIrwnHwOFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MMZPdPge72ivIPU3 ItmlMDnja5ZFtJSq7syNR7b/0/t/9fbcnowgDf69h9xX5Jd2GLV3vto8/1SuQmryHfecC5k7 Yv+tziyq0E6+LhsSMLU/T/xpycPbhTec0w8d0L4UrPScudeH6U702ouvRR4cqz44XevJa/nl sRE61W/Ka3WdAvjZdk+arcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAFVdrXybAgAA References: <20140212195836.25824.39777.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F1AF800@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/KfJ7Nv34IoNK2u15ZTTMXJJMg-M Subject: Re: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted-01.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:54:21 -0000 Hi Uma, Thanks for commenting and sorry for the late response. Our idea of this document is to have a document that informs about the architecture of the parent PCE and BGP-LS. If BGP-LS is not supported another mechanism may be used to sync the TED, but I would be out of the scope of this document. Victor El 13/02/14 23:48, "Uma Chunduri" escribi=F3: >Dear Authors, > >Is it possible that TED may not be shared between 2 providers (even with >BGP-LS and with restricted policy, for security reasons) and >you still might have to resort to PCEP notification message? > >So essentially single provide with multiple areas/ASes can have a >controller (with pPCE) and >need hybrid model as specified above to solve inter controller >communication ? > >Do you have plans to extend this document to cover this or the model >represented in this document already covered this case? Can you comment? > >-- >Uma C. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Victor Lopez >Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:03 AM >To: Pce >Subject: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for >draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted-01.txt > >Dear all, > >We have updated the draft with the feedback we received from the PCE >Mailing list. Moreover, as proposed by the PCE WG, we will distribute the >draft in the IDR mailing list to know the opinion of the working group. > >Comments are welcome > >Victor, Oscar, Daniel and Stefano > > >El 12/02/14 20:58, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" >escribi=F3: > >> >>A new version of I-D, draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted-01.txt has been >>successfully submitted by Victor Lopez and posted to the IETF >>repository. >> >>Name: draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted >>Revision: 01 >>Title: Traffic Engineering Database dissemination for >>Hierarchical PCE >>scenarios >>Document date: 2014-02-11 >>Group: Individual Submission >>Pages: 11 >>URL: >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted-01.txt >>Status: >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted/ >>Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted-01 >>Diff: >>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-lopez-pce-hpce-ted-01 >> >>Abstract: >> The PCE architecture is well-defined and may be used to compute the >> optimal path for LSPS across domains in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks. >> The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) [RFC6805] was >> developed to provide an optimal path when the sequence of domains is >> not known in advance. The procedure and mechanism for populating the >> Traffic Engineering Database (TED) with domain topology and link >> information used in H-PCE-based path computations is open to >> interpretation. This informational document describes how topology >> dissemination mechanisms may be used to provide TE information >> between Parent and Child PCEs (within the H-PCE context). In >> particular, it describes how BGP-LS might be used to provide inter- >> domain connectivity. This document is not intended to define new >> extensions, it demonstrates how existing procedures and mechanisms >> may be used. >> >> >> >> >> >>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >>tools.ietf.org. >> >>The IETF Secretariat >> > > >________________________________ > >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >nuestra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el = enlace >situado m=E1s abajo. >This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and >receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: >http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From nobody Sun Mar 16 14:12:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B981A0310 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:12:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O6g7b4U7jv4K for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF8E1A0196 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2GLCWDP005195; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:32 GMT Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2GLCTYD005167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:31 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" References: <20131002135038.20697.95611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01bd01cebf81$ae9b41e0$0bd1c5a0$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B448AA5BB@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B448AA5BB@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:30 -0000 Message-ID: <268701cf415c$724847d0$56d8d770$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHTZrMPKmLzjVme4gF8UKofaBVYpwI++NaaAs5qkQias34w8A== Content-language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20570.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--44.332-8.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--44.332-8.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oCj5caaCQykDJrf2+hNOhUg5Iem1vm3Ht3aeg7g/usAutoY2UtFqGE90 0KYgJiJVhhl7lEd2T8+1Yu370vMdVkoNmUsFJ/yrQr2qXCJMSV9CdUZFvvy+kOdRptUeiVcWEz/ JFM/5sGnmYgXqqYix1tuTZxGsVD5Uus7M7cbjIygItCy6ZX/lLxrHeFABLxXVMHMe7hLLNIMRRL fe6UPgvEFi3hbvXtr4d1I8/WNsBW7huaNyIeP+c6fXIl6Cf6VrZbPBlDYvqM0uaIC/E9/9wQef5 FoKtUGzfZUwNr3uCOC7Z2sBS2+6GwUdl+aJDTYnqVdeuk7LerQNmVMWD55fOwsYTLszqCDWsGe1 ywPieGr87KUs7MUjDCJWbg+JhAaNZViJg2pXeVzsPMG550sPG6CjvIRDW3XLcm3QsEdmPqE+UBb B9UDbDnF+05+OJk6YtQbnXOiyvfANYvWmzj/twDXKFtsDtZ7TCmo4ilaIoal03GAz54To+wliaG 5U71CixBfKfM05IIa8751NExRqcrf7u4+qsgDvt1AhvyEKdj4dQSyPGb6mCG2/j5pTTlX7cZA2m IwIeLP76jKbnQwpcEe+SK7YHHNLjlL/hujrw1vAJnGRMfFxyZZ6zKu0q4rti2g8XzxCDftHJXBs NeB/la0Ov0sVjiJdkZOl7WKIImq0P2qkGU0XylZ0V5tYhzdWxEHRux+uk8jpP8tMOyYmaA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/xtvaya6F0zVyIvPmBuYZFADIRYg Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-01.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:12:50 -0000 Hi Dhruv, Doing my archivist's job for her, I find two emails from you not responded. Sorry. Herewith, number 1 A > -----Original Message----- > From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com] > Sent: 03 October 2013 10:40 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-01.txt > > Hi, > > Some comments inline! > > Also I made comments during the adoption call [http://www.ietf.org/mail- > archive/web/pce/current/msg03168.html]. Some of the editorial comments have > been handled and would like to know the Author's opinion on the rest. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Adrian Farrel > > Sent: 02 October 2013 20:42 > > To: pce@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-01.txt > > > > Hi, > > > > I did an update to this I-D to clean up the typos and references. No new text > > of substance. > > > > It would be really good if people could comment on which issues are not clear, > > and also suggest additional questions to be answered by the document. > > > > During the discussion of adoption by the WG, Xian said: > > > (snip) > > > > > 2: In Section 3, it states > > > "Note that this exchange of PCE capabilities is in the form of an > > > announcement, not a negotiation. That is, a PCC that wants specific > > > function from a PCE must examine the advertised capabilities and > > > select which PCE to use for a specific request. There is no scope > > > for a PCC to request a PCE to support features or functions that it > > > does not offer or announce." > > > > > > From what we currently have in Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-pce-stateful- > > > pce-04, it seems to me that LSP modification capability is negotiated > > > *not* advertised. > > > The reason is obvious since it is a two-way thing. Just wonder whether > > > phrase likes "stateful PCE capability negotiation" in the WG draft or the > > > text above should be modified to avoid confusion? > > > > I went back and read section 5.3 of the -06 version of the draft. I agree > > that the PCE and PCC "negotiate" which functions they are going to use, but > > only in the sense that they each say whether they support the features and, > > if they both do, they agree to use them. Thus, just as with PCEP pre-stateful > > extensions, the speakers are announcing their capabilities, not requesting a > > service of choosing from a set of available features. I reckon that doesn't > > count as negotiation. > > > > Thoughts? > > > [DD] I agree! And I suggest [draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce] section 5.3 should be > renamed to Capability Advertisement. OK, but out of scope for this document > > > 3: Section 18, it states > > > LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC > > > (usually an ingress LSR) passes responsibility for triggering > > > reoptimization or re-routing of an LSP to the PCE." > > > > > > LSP delegation covers wider purpose than stated above, right? For > > > example providing protection paths, as described in draft-ietf-pce- > > > stateful-pce-00. > > > > I don't agree with this. > > Delegation (according to the -06 version) grants the PCE rights to modify the > > parameters of an LSP. > > I don't see how this is related to providing protection paths. > > I suppose that one could set up two LSPs without worrying about whether they > > share resources, and then delegate them to the PCE to sort them out and make > > them disjoint. Seems a bit extreme to me. > > > > Furthermore, section 5.7 of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-06 says... > > > > LSP protection and interaction with stateful PCE, as well as the > > extensions necessary to implement this functionality will be > > discussed in a separate draft. > > > [DD]Going back to the original text (and not focusing on protection), I mentioned > in my earlier mail... > > This sections gives an impression that the delegation of LSP > can only be done once the LSP is setup and then LSR (PCC) passes > responsibility for triggering reoptimization or re-routing of an > LSP to the PCE. In case of a new tunnel configuration with > delegation enabled, IMHO the PCC should be able to delegate > even when it has no path right now. > > I suggest rewording to not limit delegation to "passing responsibility for triggering > reoptimization or re-routing". > Maybe use the wording of the draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-06: > > "LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where > a PCC (usually an ingress LSR) grants the right to update LSP > attributes of an LSP to the PCE." Well, I don't call that delegation. Others may disagree, but I don't see any difference between what you described as "delegation before LSP establishment" and any other request to the Active PCE to cause an LSP to be set up. I think there is also some subtlety in the text you quoted from the stateful PCE draft. Is a PCC obliged to act on the update it receives from a PCE? I think there is always the case where the PCC tries to act, but fails for some reason (for example, there has been a change in the network in the meantime). So we have the possibility for the PCC to say "sorry, but no." So the only question is whether the PCC can say that for its own reasons. I believe the answer is "yes" and the magic unicorn in this picture is called "Policy". A From nobody Sun Mar 16 14:58:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF7D1A01A0 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:58:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mjgViHMm7emQ for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200381A0139 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2GLvmfj005336; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:57:48 GMT Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2GLviRX005303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:57:46 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:57:45 -0000 Message-ID: <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_268F_01CF4162.C4D900B0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQNBTAKt13E+qb+7zl793QfaTCZ0wQHZAZ2OAhNqv0qX4L1fUA== Content-language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20570.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--26.903-8.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--26.903-8.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 4DzIFjPGnphDZFBd1jLr/vSG/+sPtZVk21vbWXUnSNzF7duWDXiFEjMr 4lT9VtZktrQ6EQs5jybarKUOxLg806E4vLzh8qh5F6z9HGHKwNtr9+Kgn2XgeLJ3rmpkUU+TpFT oBK0NzILIaAIe20U9q4u1QC1AYySYahqNaxEQeGiM29hkek7XdyseSAhqf1rRT7S4ZU4XTxDz13 B3cTLiWvti5w9sfshXAaz5lD9lxAi31G6CKdUG1R3EEAbn+GRboyiyAoy/bGe5IifwYL1+q/4W2 AZtJOwtQA3yUnztNeas785e1fGu8nsk5ijHlPQNfVRlI+8Oy1kxmbT6wQT2a9/wHr/wk3HvvWi5 ex0jCdKpKtgHmIIHXMDQefyq45J94MG9jJywnBX9KXlxhBAZb66IBbSnfz+30pZKESwinxOekFZ 5VzCMoF632KLJ/vqKoSAYJH6B6vYiHZrZAcDtw5cDhniv1q1zU+A7YkpDJ1goDMZ3xV44iHVw2x xcZthfnb+0a0qIQCQpJvJLpbPfP2hKBwPmHsPFu72KpAktHS+2InV6AaP6lZUhT38IzfaR7KBBZ 2QBUyxPifNxprH2cuulrrvUsCg/pcSs+R0ucPSBlNt4VSGvITK1/qdbjc7QPd2nEgQbAJrwWEaN OnlY99dfqVUX/2sZtF3RbBlJV000nIDKoCZxv+Rw69tAYXNGs+SyIdviDnylF7MF/8ayEnii5kS OR4tGVCir/P/HlBCexSLBWoM4BFISCbZIzCBZIj0zFI5DoJJeCrB32KOS0H6cp973lFkJS/4a/2 DJkv/IsRl9bO6fZT0v5c2s0m9M0nbjHOkZyPmeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPB9j2Gwz TE3vXkguuQorcgMFXeuAKhOW+FRJ/Czgn/al4wybEBl8TtkITaWeLwAPSV+3BndfXUhXQ== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/JhqwoebK-f4232-b426ISVkBYyA Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:58:00 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_268F_01CF4162.C4D900B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi again, Here is the second missed email. Thoughts in line. Cheers, Adrian From: dhruvdhody@gmail.com [mailto:dhruvdhody@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 06 February 2014 12:22 To: Farrel Adrian Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Hi Adrian, There are a few comments that i made during the WG adoption call. [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg03168.html]. Most of them have been handled in -01 version. I have listed some that i would like your opinion on. * Sec 3. How Is Topology Information Gathered? Another issue faced when using IGP to fed TED is the area-scope issue. Since IGP-TE flooding scope is per area, an multi-area or AS-scope PCE must have an IGP peer for all the areas. I'm pretty sure I disagree or agree. You are saying that a PCE that has multi-domain visibility must be able to build its TED from multiple sources (i.e. from each domain). Isn't this obvious? But I am adding a simple note at the end of Section 3 to cover this case. Also I think we can augment this section to include 'How PCE learn about Boundary Nodes?'. Hmmmm. And sigh :-) How does a non-PCE system learn about boundary nodes? It's in the IGP and the EGP. * Sec 5. How Do I Select Between PCEs? Along with capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for each computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv. You are going to have to remind me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE subtlv defined? I suppose I was considering that a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its own domain, but I can add a note. * Sec 13. What are Sticky Resources? OLD: This can result in LSP setup failures are there is contention for resources. NEW: This can result in LSP setup failures if there is contention for resources. Ack * Sec 20. Comparison of Stateless and Stateful PCE Can you have a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is now a WG draft. Mutter! Which document is right? What specific issue are you raising? Thanks, Adrian (who hates html email, but can't be bothered to convert this one to plain text). ------=_NextPart_000_268F_01CF4162.C4D900B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = again,

 

Here is the second missed = email.

 

Thoughts in = line.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: = dhruvdhody@gmail.com [mailto:dhruvdhody@gmail.com] On Behalf Of = Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 06 February 2014 12:22
To: = Farrel Adrian
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] = I-D Action: = draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt

 

Hi = Adrian, 

 

There are a few comments that i made = during the WG adoption call. 

 

Most of them have been handled in -01 = version. 

I have listed some that i would like = your opinion on. 

 

* Sec 3.  = How Is Topology Information Gathered?   = 
Another =
issue faced when using IGP to fed TED is the area-scope issue. =
Since
IGP-TE =
flooding scope is per area, an multi-area or AS-scope PCE must have an =
IGP peer
for all =
the areas. 
 
I'm pretty sure I disagree or =
agree.
You are saying that a PCE that has =
multi-domain visibility must be able to build its TED from multiple =
sources (i.e. from each domain). 
Isn't this =
obvious?
But I am adding a simple note at =
the end of Section 3 to cover this =
case.
 
Also I think we can augment this section to =
include 'How PCE learn about
Boundary Nodes?'. =

 
Hmmmm. And sigh =
:-)
How does a =
non-PCE system learn about boundary =
nodes?
It's in the =
IGP and the EGP.
 
* Sec 5.  =
How Do I Select Between PCEs?
Along with capability, you can also mention the =
PCE's preference for each
computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE =
subtlv.
 
You are going to have to remind =
me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE subtlv =
defined?
I suppose I was considering that a =
PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its own domain, but I can add a =
note.
 
* Sec 13.  =
What are Sticky Resources?
OLD:
This can result in LSP setup failures are there is =
contention for
resources.
NEW:
This can result in LSP setup failures if there is =
contention for
resources.
 
Ack
 
* Sec 20.  =
Comparison of Stateless and Stateful =
PCE
Can you have =
a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is now a WG =
draft. 
 
Mutter!
Which document is =
right?
What specific issue are you =
raising?
 
Thanks,
Adrian (who hates html email, but =
can't be bothered to convert this one to plain =
text).
------=_NextPart_000_268F_01CF4162.C4D900B0-- From nobody Sun Mar 16 15:07:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F43C1A0323; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ThemZZloZnr5; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58BBD1A0139; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:07:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.1.0p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140316220746.5764.50739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:07:46 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/_EJPoJke9r6qkxsOZZ-0SQxFzY0 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-03.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:07:48 -0000 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 : Unanswered Questions in the Path Computation Element Architecture Authors : Adrian Farrel Daniel King Filename : draft-ietf-pce-questions-03.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2014-03-16 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture is set out in RFC 4655. The architecture is extended for multi-layer networking with the introduction of the Virtual Network Topology Manager in RFC 5623, and generalized to Hierarchical PCE in RFC 6805. These three architectural views of PCE deliberately leave some key questions unanswered especially with respect to the interactions between architectural components. This document draws out those questions and discusses them in an architectural context with reference to other architectural components, existing protocols, and recent IETF work efforts. This document does not update the architecture documents and does not define how protocols or components must be used. It does, however, suggest how the architectural components might be combined to provide advanced PCE function. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-questions/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-questions-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 17 02:08:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85191A0051 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vfc4a1O-Qd6M for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB6C1A0088 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEQ38444; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:36 +0000 Received: from SZXEML448-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.191) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:42 +0000 Received: from szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.34]) by szxeml448-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.191]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:08:36 +0800 From: Dhruv Dhody To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHTZrMPKmLzjVme4gF8UKofaBVYpwI++NaaAs5qkQias34w8IAAoUhw Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:35 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BA8@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <20131002135038.20697.95611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01bd01cebf81$ae9b41e0$0bd1c5a0$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B448AA5BB@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <268701cf415c$724847d0$56d8d770$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <268701cf415c$724847d0$56d8d770$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.146.248] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/HFhCSNc-NKqH2-jr2_2xm6DH_HU Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-01.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:53 -0000 Hi Adrian,=20 (snip to the only open issue here) > > [DD]Going back to the original text (and not focusing on protection), > > I > mentioned > > in my earlier mail... > > > > This sections gives an impression that the delegation of LSP > > can only be done once the LSP is setup and then LSR (PCC) passes > > responsibility for triggering reoptimization or re-routing of an > > LSP to the PCE. In case of a new tunnel configuration with > > delegation enabled, IMHO the PCC should be able to delegate > > even when it has no path right now. > > > > I suggest rewording to not limit delegation to "passing responsibility > > for > triggering > > reoptimization or re-routing". > > Maybe use the wording of the draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-06: > > > > "LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where > > a PCC (usually an ingress LSR) grants the right to update LSP > > attributes of an LSP to the PCE." >=20 > Well, I don't call that delegation. Others may disagree, but I don't see = any > difference between what you described as "delegation before LSP > establishment" > and any other request to the Active PCE to cause an LSP to be set up. >=20 > I think there is also some subtlety in the text you quoted from the state= ful > PCE draft. Is a PCC obliged to act on the update it receives from a PCE? = I > think there is always the case where the PCC tries to act, but fails for = some > reason (for example, there has been a change in the network in the meanti= me). > So we have the possibility for the PCC to say "sorry, but no." So the onl= y > question is whether the PCC can say that for its own reasons. I believe t= he > answer is "yes" > and the magic unicorn in this picture is called "Policy". [DD] I agree with this and I see that you have added text in -03 version.=20 But my concern is with the fact that the current section only talks about "= re-optimization or re-routing".=20 As you also mention that, there might be 'delegation' before LSP establishm= ent and thus I was thinking something in line of.... OLD: LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC (usually an ingress LSR) passes responsibility for triggering reoptimization or re-routing of an LSP to the PCE. In this case, the PCE would need to be both Stateful and Active. NEW: LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC (usually an ingress LSR) grants the right to suggest updates to LSP attribu= tes=20 of an LSP to the PCE. In this case, the=20 PCE would need to be both Stateful and Active. ... so that it doesn't limit to re-optimization/re-routing as well as only = 'suggest' updates!=20 I hope this change is reasonable?=20 Regards, Dhruv >=20 > A From nobody Mon Mar 17 02:09:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926951A0064 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:09:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yltOVFWIsc8e for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5501A0051 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEQ38493; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:09:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:59 +0000 Received: from SZXEML452-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.195) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:59 +0000 Received: from szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.34]) by szxeml452-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.195]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:08:52 +0800 From: Dhruv Dhody To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHPIy26Jzv+UOmnbkaOnaaVXq3jw5qnkQYAgAAOhwCAPFmBgIABHFbQ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:08:51 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.146.248] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAFszxeml556mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wKYgyrpAWCvOqnRBx4N-qWrBsWY Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:09:13 -0000 --_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAFszxeml556mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Adrian, Sorry for the HTML, but I am hoping this thread can be closed soon... Look in line for [DD]. From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 17 March 2014 03:28 To: 'Dhruv Dhody' Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Hi again, Here is the second missed email. Thoughts in line. Cheers, Adrian From: dhruvdhody@gmail.com [mailto:dhruvdhody@= gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 06 February 2014 12:22 To: Farrel Adrian Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Hi Adrian, There are a few comments that i made during the WG adoption call. [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg03168.html]. Most of them have been handled in -01 version. I have listed some that i would like your opinion on. * Sec 3. How Is Topology Information Gathered? Another issue faced when using IGP to fed TED is the area-scope issue. Sinc= e IGP-TE flooding scope is per area, an multi-area or AS-scope PCE must have = an IGP peer for all the areas. I'm pretty sure I disagree or agree. You are saying that a PCE that has multi-domain visibility must be able to = build its TED from multiple sources (i.e. from each domain). Isn't this obvious? But I am adding a simple note at the end of Section 3 to cover this case. [DD] I am happy with the note! Also I think we can augment this section to include 'How PCE learn about Boundary Nodes?'. Hmmmm. And sigh :-) How does a non-PCE system learn about boundary nodes? It's in the IGP and the EGP. [DD] Sorry for being a pain, but I can live with you not including this. * Sec 5. How Do I Select Between PCEs? Along with capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for each computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv. You are going to have to remind me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE sub= tlv defined? I suppose I was considering that a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its= own domain, but I can add a note. [DD] Its in RFC5088, 5089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE in its = own domain which matches with the path computation scope (inter-area, inter= -AS, inter-layer) along with the capability. OLD: When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request. The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. NEW: When more than one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities and path computation scope, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request= . The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths fo= r the relevant domain. (snip) * Sec 20. Comparison of Stateless and Stateful PCE Can you have a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is n= ow a WG draft. Mutter! Which document is right? What specific issue are you raising? [DD] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 says | Stateless | Stateful | ------------------------+-----------+-----------+ Passive | 1 | 2 | Active delegated LSPs | 3 | 4 | Active suggest new LSPs | 5 | 6 | Active instantiate LSPs | 7 | 7 | 7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described. Where does draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my reading this was= 7, and thus I suggested it should not be out of scope. If you agree, ignore below text... Otherwise we have some confusion over the terms... IMO 'Suggest new LSP' was same as PCE sends an update message triggering se= tup of a new LSP in MBB fashion. 'Instantiate LSP' was PCE send an LSP initiate message to instantiate an LS= P. (7) Maybe you can clarify what is your understanding of these terms... Regards, Dhruv Thanks, Adrian (who hates html email, but can't be bothered to convert this one to = plain text). --_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAFszxeml556mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Adrian,

 <= /p>

Sorry for the HTML, but I= am hoping this thread can be closed soon…

 <= /p>

Look in line for [DD].

 <= /p>

From: Pce [mai= lto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 17 March 2014 03:28
To: 'Dhruv Dhody'
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt<= /o:p>

 

Hi again,<= o:p>

 = ;

Here is th= e second missed email.

 = ;

Thoughts i= n line.

 = ;

Cheers,

Adrian

 = ;

From: dhruvdhody@gmail.com [mailto:dhruvdhody@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 06 February 2014 12:22
To: Farrel Adrian
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt<= /o:p>

 

Hi Ad= rian, 

=  

There= are a few comments that i made during the WG adoption call. 

=  

Most = of them have been handled in -01 version. 

I hav= e listed some that i would like your opinion on. 

=  

* Sec 3.  How Is Topology Information Gathere=
d?   
Another issue faced when us=
ing IGP to fed TED is the area-scope issue. Since
IGP-TE flooding scope is pe=
r area, an multi-area or AS-scope PCE must have an IGP peer
for all the areas. 
 

I'm pretty sure I disagree or ag=
ree.


You are saying that a PCE that h=
as multi-domain visibility must be able to build its TED from multiple sour=
ces (i.e. from each domain). 


Isn't this obvious?


But I am adding a simple note at=
 the end of Section 3 to cover this case.


[DD] I am happy with t=
he note! 


 

Also I think we can augment this section to includ=
e 'How PCE learn about


Boundary Nodes?'. 


 

Hmmmm. And sigh :-)


How does a non-PCE system lea=
rn about boundary nodes?


It's in the IGP and the EGP.<=
/span>


[DD] Sorry for being a=
 pain, but I can live with you not including this.


 

* Sec 5.  How Do I Sel=
ect Between PCEs?


Along with capability, you =
can also mention the PCE's preference for each


computation scope as carrie=
d in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv.


 

You are going to have to remind =
me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE subtlv defined?

I suppose I was considering that=
 a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its own domain, but I can add a not=
e.


[DD] Its in RFC5088, 5=
089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE in its own domain which match=
es with the path computation scope (inter-area, inter-AS, inter-layer) alon=
g with the capability.


OLD:

   When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC =
will need


   to select which PCE to use.  It may make this decisio=
n on any


   arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-r=
obin), but


   it may also be the case that different PCEs have different=



   capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select th=
e PCE most


   likely to be able to satisfy any one request.  The fi=
rst requirement,


     =
of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. =



NEW:


   When more than one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need


   to select which PCE to use.  It may make this decisio=
n on any


   arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-r=
obin), but


   it may also be the case that different PCEs have different=



   capabilities and path computation scope, in which case the PCC will 


   want to select the PCE most likely to be able to sati=
sfy any one request.


     =
The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for 


    &=
nbsp;the relevant domain. 


 


(snip)


 

* Sec 20.  Comparison of Stateless and Statef=
ul PCE


Can you have a re look at t=
his wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is now a WG draft. <=
/span>


 

Mutter!


Which document is right?<=
span lang=3D"EN-GB" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri&quo=
t;,"sans-serif";color:#1F497D">


What specific issue are you rais=
ing?

[DD] http://tools.i=
etf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 says 


            =
;            &n=
bsp;     | Stateless |  Stateful |=



      ------------------------+-----------=
+-----------+


      Passive     &nb=
sp;           | &nbs=
p;   1     |     2 &=
nbsp;   |


      Active delegated LSPs   | =
;    3     |     4&n=
bsp;    |


      Active suggest new LSPs |   &n=
bsp; 5     |     6  =
   |


    &=
nbsp;   Active instantiate LSPs |     7 =
    |     7     |


 <=
/pre>

    &=
nbsp; 7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described.<=
/o:p>


 

Where does draft-ietf-pce=
-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my reading this was 7, and thus I sugges=
ted it should not be out of scope. 


If you agree, ignore below t=
ext… 


 

Otherwise we have some confu=
sion over the terms…


IMO ‘Suggest new LS=
P’ was same as PCE sends an update message triggering setup of a new =
LSP in MBB fashion.  


‘Instantiate LSP=
217; was PCE send an LSP initiate message to instantiate an LSP. (7)


Maybe you can clarify what i=
s your understanding of these terms… 


 

Regards,

Dhruv

 

 

Thanks,


Adrian (who hates html email, bu=
t can't be bothered to convert this one to plain text).
--_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAFszxeml556mbschi_-- From nobody Mon Mar 17 04:24:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4111A03F1 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:24:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oar9oraB8qR0 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6901A03E1 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2HBNjHq000934; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:23:45 GMT Received: from 950129200 (108.26.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.26.108]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2HBNgGi000899 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:23:44 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" References: <20131002135038.20697.95611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01bd01cebf81$ae9b41e0$0bd1c5a0$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B448AA5BB@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <268701cf415c$724847d0$56d8d770$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BA8@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BA8@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:23:44 -0000 Message-ID: <276e01cf41d3$5c6e6f80$154b4e80$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHTZrMPKmLzjVme4gF8UKofaBVYpwI++NaaAs5qkQgCKII0aAD5wgi3mptavBA= Content-language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20570.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.149-8.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--15.149-8.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 7ySqCuYCpfgtqx4vLVZ3FvHkpkyUphL9QKuv8uQBDjpUvqB5o/Lqc+1m h89fsgqu4CtjYmQpb2nUe7Xjz/r6obSYnj+K473ZBu2zRCSrLjYsCc2iFTIxrf2TbFr0CGOD8xO 4isLpZaGhT+bh/OEvVYGwaIKd6VKF5UcZtwNsCro5f9Xw/xqKXcidYBYDjITp+gD2vYtOFhgqtq 5d3cxkNU2scHCit7PeOdc3PuHeqpGmKxlyKA2Ei/s1YQRuvqxaJd9P4ILvCMQ= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4iXL4Ukt9oT9l0IT8Q7U3932DYM Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-01.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:24:05 -0000 Hi, [snip] > [DD] I agree with this and I see that you have added text in -03 version. > But my concern is with the fact that the current section only talks about "re- > optimization or re-routing". > As you also mention that, there might be 'delegation' before LSP establishment > and thus I was thinking something in line of.... > > OLD: > LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC > (usually an ingress LSR) passes responsibility for triggering > reoptimization or re-routing of an LSP to the PCE. In this case, the > PCE would need to be both Stateful and Active. > > NEW: > LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC > (usually an ingress LSR) grants the right to suggest updates to LSP attributes > of an LSP to the PCE. In this case, the > PCE would need to be both Stateful and Active. > > ... so that it doesn't limit to re-optimization/re-routing as well as only 'suggest' > updates! > I hope this change is reasonable? OK, I get your point. A From nobody Mon Mar 17 04:41:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D46A1A03F0 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.782 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.782 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DfEG5U6lpYjX for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E701A03ED for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2HBeeqZ020566; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:40:40 GMT Received: from 950129200 (108.26.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.26.108]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2HBebO0020440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:40:38 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:40:38 -0000 Message-ID: <277201cf41d5$b934d2c0$2b9e7840$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2773_01CF41D5.B9457490" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQNBTAKt13E+qb+7zl793QfaTCZ0wQHZAZ2OAhNqv0oB1xANVQJi0xgol7/b2lA= Content-language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20570.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.949-8.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--24.949-8.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkADJrf2+hNOhWzBijri5+RVH181YDtIVarVl0v7E9KhhuyL QG9V/UV4PlMse0Nxtvas785e1fGu8nsk5ijHlPQNfVRlI+8Oy1kxmbT6wQT2a3a2ZEC0WTlXiE5 QDUai46s7ef1IrGI+TkDwPwupLH8nK2D6pmarVf+sRE9/GNUGYRSRa9qpSosfdEG7y+D7o5BgHI Y7z5OVP+DudXKX8Z0SY5RhAcS9fnyx38Lv0UGk6HBRIrj8R47F2D9FbDg9BP4z91mDYZLM5YyAj 9lUwfNq0zA3ckbt+ITxdgHhU7m2h/ZyTDo2IZ6Uma6DzXaohvN4nU6KtjDMA/tIGYNPFVxaimzW YYKiqn9W7ggAU3VlbLZJkrxvenY7h3MOJCC8Ohq7335YZAh4C3N3sLsG0mhuU6v/653LDVl5HvU K8H+FBmrvzgW9PVz7Us0/2dvwd0SXh6Ql72moIQPZZctd3P4BhQaFqMRElglooy/QGYEKTILCCV fTVmLWz5Ttalce2+j/hDDq/XyZmdEQrO9Lrj6h2Hdvv/MGE3W36GGfwjLoZce0H7LMCFcVwRq4t sfhpBwOxu2s7fdNV4sWCfP6Gmv5dbSgks66AoGPVEZA4HZW+f0ZphLMH+yHol3uZzZ1GLegSjOt q5sfaYyP6r4WZtR1edxyf/baQ0eb2ohNz0F+pNT+TcIhUUCBZJAk04EAz2Un+p552csI1Y/sYBB J7n+d9sFE6GfY4gY8LuP+bOkMWp8voPxO05mszzuzg6dga4IDYMDMBThLyRPuWwH3mlrqVD4IX3 GhzkucTZGiBUd8fawQUp5/xlTG2ygMnPk4DNyeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPB9j2Gwz TE3vXkguuQorcgM5+F9CpkclQ/23I1bwSaMU8AoEyhdMpEmWC4pRJShYR9+3BndfXUhXQ== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/1F6SYeb6-If9a55r53TL7yTCQaU Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:41:15 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_2773_01CF41D5.B9457490 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry for the HTML, but I am hoping this thread can be closed soon. You're killing me :-) Hoping you are not red/green colourblind. Look in line for [DD]. [Snipped to only the points for discussion] * Sec 5. How Do I Select Between PCEs? Along with capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for each computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv. You are going to have to remind me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE subtlv defined? I suppose I was considering that a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its own domain, but I can add a note. [DD] Its in RFC5088, 5089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE in its own domain which matches with the path computation scope (inter-area, inter-AS, inter-layer) along with the capability. Ah, ah, ah! I was busy thinking this was a PCEP sub-tlv. OLD: When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request. The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. NEW: When more than one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities and path computation scope, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request. The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. Yeah, OK for that. It duplicates the final sentence I added to this paragraph, but it does no harm. * Sec 20. Comparison of Stateless and Stateful PCE Can you have a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is now a WG draft. Mutter! Which document is right? What specific issue are you raising? [DD] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 says | Stateless | Stateful | ------------------------+-----------+-----------+ Passive | 1 | 2 | Active delegated LSPs | 3 | 4 | Active suggest new LSPs | 5 | 6 | Active instantiate LSPs | 7 | 7 | 7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described. Where does draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my reading this was 7, and thus I suggested it should not be out of scope. If you agree, ignore below text. Otherwise we have some confusion over the terms. IMO 'Suggest new LSP' was same as PCE sends an update message triggering setup of a new LSP in MBB fashion. 'Instantiate LSP' was PCE send an LSP initiate message to instantiate an LSP. (7) Maybe you can clarify what is your understanding of these terms. OK, the difference I am trying to arrive at is whether the Active PCE can *require* the establishment of an LSP, or whether it is *suggesting* it. The difference is (IMHO) between an NMS or CLI that dictates what the LSR does, and an Active PCE that requests the LSR to act. More precisely, absent access controls, an LSR obeys the NMS, but an LSR can implement policy to filter or modify requests from a PCE. I realise that this view might not be popular with implementers of Active PCEs, but I think that they are failing to distinguish between the blob of code they are writing and naming "Company Foo's most Excellent Active PCE", and the architectural components. This, at least, is part of what I am trying to convey in Section 19 of this document and in the ABNO document. The bottom line, I think, is that a PCE is not a provisioning tool, it is a path computation element. The fact that PCEP is used as a provisioning protocol does not make the thing that does the provisioning into a PCE. Of course, I don't want to go against consensus with this, but I do think it is an important architectural principle. Thus, I have been looking for words that suit both viewpoints... For an Active PCE to "suggest new LSPs" or to "recommend new LSPs" as described in Sections 19 and 20 allows, IMHO, an LSR to have a policy that says "always do what is recommended" and so achieving PCE-initiated LSPs. Yet, these words also allow a policy of "look both ways before crossing the road" which fits more closely with my world-view. >From my perspective "sending an update message to trigger setup of a new LSP in MBB fashion" is no different from setting up any other LSP. First there was no LSP, then there is one. So I think the distinction you are drawing doesn't work. I hope that explains my motivation, and I believe the words in the draft fit this explanation. Cheers, Adrian ------=_NextPart_000_2773_01CF41D5.B9457490 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry for the HTML, but I am hoping this = thread can be closed soon…

 

You're = killing me :-)

Hoping = you are not red/green colourblind.

 

Look in line for [DD]. =

 

= [Snipped to only the points for discussion]=

 

* Sec 5.  How Do I Select Between =
PCEs?
Along with =
capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for =
each
computation =
scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE =
subtlv.
 
Y=
ou are going to have to remind me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE =
subtlv defined?
I=
 suppose I was considering that a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in =
its own domain, but I can add a note.
[DD] Its in RFC5088, 5089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE =
in its own domain which matches with the path computation scope =
(inter-area, inter-AS, inter-layer) along with the =
capability.
 
Ah, ah, ah! I was busy thinking this was a PCEP sub-tlv. 
 
OLD:
   =
When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will =
need
   to select which PCE to use.  =
It may make this decision on any
   =
arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), =
but
   it may also be the case that =
different PCEs have different
   =
capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE =
most
   likely to be able to satisfy any =
one request.  The first =
requirement,
     of course, is that the =
PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. =

NEW:
   =
When more than one PCE is =
discovered or configured, a PCC will need
   =
to select which PCE to use.  It may make this decision on =
any
   arbitrary algorithm (for example, =
first-listed, or round-robin), but
   =
it may also be the case that different PCEs have =
different
   capabilities and path computation =
scope, in which case the PCC will 
   want to select the PCE most =
likely to be able to satisfy any one =
request.
 =
    The first requirement, of course, is that the =
PCE can compute paths for 
     the relevant =
domain. 
 
Yeah, OK for that. It =
duplicates the final sentence I added to this paragraph, but it does no =
harm.
 
* Sec 20.  Comparison of Stateless and =
Stateful PCE
Can =
you have a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is =
now a WG draft. 
 
M=
utter!
W=
hich document is right?
W=
hat specific issue are you raising?
[DD] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 =
says 
        &=
nbsp;           &n=
bsp;         | Stateless =
|  Stateful |
      =
------------------------+-----------+-----------+
= 
      =
Passive           =
      |     =
1     |     =
2     |
      Active delegated =
LSPs   |     3     =
|     4     =
|
      Active suggest =
new LSPs |     5     =
|     6     =
|
      =
  Active instantiate LSPs |     =
7     |     =
7     |
 
      7. These modes =
are out of scope for PCE as currently =
described.
 
Where does draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my =
reading this was 7, and thus I suggested it should not be out of scope. =

If you agree, ignore below text… =

 
Otherwise we have some confusion over the =
terms…
IMO ‘Suggest new LSP’ was same as PCE sends an update =
message triggering setup of a new LSP in MBB fashion. =

‘Instantiate LSP’ was PCE send an LSP initiate message to =
instantiate an LSP. (7)
Maybe you can clarify what is your understanding of these =
terms… 
 
OK, the difference I am trying =
to arrive at is whether the Active PCE can *require* the establishment =
of an LSP, or whether it is *suggesting* =
it.
 
The difference is (IMHO) =
between an NMS or CLI that dictates what the LSR does, and an Active PCE =
that requests the LSR to act.
More precisely, absent access =
controls, an LSR obeys the NMS, but an LSR can implement policy to =
filter or modify requests from a PCE.
 
I realise that this view might =
not be popular with implementers of Active PCEs, but I think that they =
are failing to distinguish between the blob of code they are writing and =
naming "Company Foo's most Excellent Active PCE", and the =
architectural components.  =
This, at least, is part of what I am trying to convey in Section =
19 of this document and in the ABNO =
document.
 
The bottom line, I think, is =
that a PCE is not a provisioning tool, it is a path computation element. =
The fact that PCEP is used as a provisioning protocol does not make the =
thing that does the provisioning into a =
PCE.
 
Of course, I don't want to go =
against consensus with this, but I do think it is an important =
architectural principle. Thus, I have been looking for words that suit =
both viewpoints...
 
For an Active PCE to =
"suggest new LSPs" or to "recommend new LSPs" as =
described in Sections 19 and 20 allows, IMHO, an LSR to have a policy =
that says "always do what is recommended" and so achieving =
PCE-initiated LSPs. Yet, these words also allow a policy of "look =
both ways before crossing the road" which fits more closely with my =
world-view. 
 
From my perspective =
"sending an update message to trigger setup of a new LSP in MBB =
fashion" is no different from setting up any other LSP. First there =
was no LSP, then there is one. So I think the distinction you are =
drawing doesn't work.
 
I hope that explains my =
motivation, and I believe the words in the draft fit this =
explanation.
 
Cheers,
Adrian
------=_NextPart_000_2773_01CF41D5.B9457490-- From nobody Mon Mar 17 07:45:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706EE1A042B for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJabHJYD4xz5 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BF11A0427 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 944DB5D8876 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:44:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF9B5D885A for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:44:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:44:51 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.94] ([10.193.71.94]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:44:51 +0100 Message-ID: <53270A63.1060306@orange.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:44:51 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2014 14:44:51.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[7413FD50:01CF41EF] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/T7neKIMitN0BHkBS-DRvPYJnbiM Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-07 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:45:03 -0000 Hi all. This message ignites a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-07. It will end on Monday, March 31, 11:59 PM (UTC-12). Thanks, JP & Julien From nobody Mon Mar 17 10:15:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A631D1A0432; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZpEeMhxgo2j; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E171A03F6; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:15:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.1.0p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140317171523.15984.15533.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:15:23 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/130zRHQ6a4b3f-rVT-7T0w9OkCY Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:15:29 -0000 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 : Unanswered Questions in the Path Computation Element Architecture Authors : Adrian Farrel Daniel King Filename : draft-ietf-pce-questions-04.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2014-03-17 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture is set out in RFC 4655. The architecture is extended for multi-layer networking with the introduction of the Virtual Network Topology Manager in RFC 5623, and generalized to Hierarchical PCE in RFC 6805. These three architectural views of PCE deliberately leave some key questions unanswered especially with respect to the interactions between architectural components. This document draws out those questions and discusses them in an architectural context with reference to other architectural components, existing protocols, and recent IETF work efforts. This document does not update the architecture documents and does not define how protocols or components must be used. It does, however, suggest how the architectural components might be combined to provide advanced PCE function. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-questions/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-questions-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Mar 17 23:24:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7191A0640 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:24:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y98PkWInctoe for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E731A0391 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCE21108; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:24:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:23:54 +0000 Received: from SZXEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.138) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:24:02 +0000 Received: from szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.34]) by szxeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:23:56 +0800 From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) Thread-Index: AQHPQnKjVDG3kopG6k+PC2yWyaMCJg== Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:23:55 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <277201cf41d5$b934d2c0$2b9e7840$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <277201cf41d5$b934d2c0$2b9e7840$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.146.248] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62szxeml556mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/iLERgsIQjv7AWlzj331pN-Q2_NA Subject: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:24:20 -0000 --_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62szxeml556mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable WG, Regarding PCE-Initiated LSP... (1) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-04#section-20 use the term "suggest" or "recommend" LSP and considers "LSP Instantiation"= as out of scope. (2) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03 (WG = -00 yet to be posted) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-= 01 all use the term "LSP instantiation" for PCE-Initiated LSP. We need to come to some consensus regarding this and use the same terminolo= gy across WG documents. Thoughts? Dhruv --------------------------------------------------------------- Dhruv Dhody System Architect, Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Banagalore This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWE= I, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. An= y use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, tot= al or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the inten= ded recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please not= ify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: 17 March 2014 17:11 To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: pce@ietf.org; 'Dhruv Dhody' Subject: RE: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Sorry for the HTML, but I am hoping this thread can be closed soon... You're killing me :-) Hoping you are not red/green colourblind. Look in line for [DD]. [Snipped to only the points for discussion] * Sec 5. How Do I Select Between PCEs? Along with capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for each computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv. You are going to have to remind me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE sub= tlv defined? I suppose I was considering that a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its= own domain, but I can add a note. [DD] Its in RFC5088, 5089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE in its = own domain which matches with the path computation scope (inter-area, inter= -AS, inter-layer) along with the capability. Ah, ah, ah! I was busy thinking this was a PCEP sub-tlv. OLD: When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request. The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. NEW: When more than one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities and path computation scope, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request= . The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths fo= r the relevant domain. Yeah, OK for that. It duplicates the final sentence I added to this paragra= ph, but it does no harm. * Sec 20. Comparison of Stateless and Stateful PCE Can you have a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is n= ow a WG draft. Mutter! Which document is right? What specific issue are you raising? [DD] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 says | Stateless | Stateful | ------------------------+-----------+-----------+ Passive | 1 | 2 | Active delegated LSPs | 3 | 4 | Active suggest new LSPs | 5 | 6 | Active instantiate LSPs | 7 | 7 | 7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described. Where does draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my reading this was= 7, and thus I suggested it should not be out of scope. If you agree, ignore below text... Otherwise we have some confusion over the terms... IMO 'Suggest new LSP' was same as PCE sends an update message triggering se= tup of a new LSP in MBB fashion. 'Instantiate LSP' was PCE send an LSP initiate message to instantiate an LS= P. (7) Maybe you can clarify what is your understanding of these terms... OK, the difference I am trying to arrive at is whether the Active PCE can *= require* the establishment of an LSP, or whether it is *suggesting* it. The difference is (IMHO) between an NMS or CLI that dictates what the LSR d= oes, and an Active PCE that requests the LSR to act. More precisely, absent access controls, an LSR obeys the NMS, but an LSR ca= n implement policy to filter or modify requests from a PCE. I realise that this view might not be popular with implementers of Active P= CEs, but I think that they are failing to distinguish between the blob of c= ode they are writing and naming "Company Foo's most Excellent Active PCE", = and the architectural components. This, at least, is part of what I am try= ing to convey in Section 19 of this document and in the ABNO document. The bottom line, I think, is that a PCE is not a provisioning tool, it is a= path computation element. The fact that PCEP is used as a provisioning pro= tocol does not make the thing that does the provisioning into a PCE. Of course, I don't want to go against consensus with this, but I do think i= t is an important architectural principle. Thus, I have been looking for wo= rds that suit both viewpoints... For an Active PCE to "suggest new LSPs" or to "recommend new LSPs" as descr= ibed in Sections 19 and 20 allows, IMHO, an LSR to have a policy that says = "always do what is recommended" and so achieving PCE-initiated LSPs. Yet, t= hese words also allow a policy of "look both ways before crossing the road"= which fits more closely with my world-view. >From my perspective "sending an update message to trigger setup of a new LS= P in MBB fashion" is no different from setting up any other LSP. First ther= e was no LSP, then there is one. So I think the distinction you are drawing= doesn't work. I hope that explains my motivation, and I believe the words in the draft fi= t this explanation. Cheers, Adrian --_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62szxeml556mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

WG,

 <= /p>

Regarding PCE-Initiated L= SP…

 <= /p>

(1) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-04#section-20

use the term “sugge= st” or “recommend” LSP and considers “LSP Instantia= tion” as out of scope.

 <= /p>

(2) = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00

http://tools.ietf= .org/html/draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03 (WG -00 yet to be posted)

http://too= ls.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-01

all use the term “L= SP instantiation” for PCE-Initiated LSP.

 <= /p>

We need to come to some c= onsensus regarding this and use the same terminology across WG documents. &= nbsp;

 <= /p>

Thoughts?

 <= /p>

Dhruv

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

--------------------------= -------------------------------------

Dhruv Dhody

System Architect,

Huawei Technologies India = Pvt. Ltd.,

Banagalore

This e-mail and its attach= ments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which

is intended only for the p= erson or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the

information contained here= in in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial

disclosure, reproduction, = or dissemination) by persons other than the intended

recipient(s) is prohibited= . If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by

phone or email immediately= and delete it!

 <= /p>

From: Adrian F= arrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: 17 March 2014 17:11
To: Dhruv Dhody
Cc: pce@ietf.org; 'Dhruv Dhody'
Subject: RE: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt<= /o:p>

 

Sorry for the HTML, but I= am hoping this thread can be closed soon…

 <= /p>

You're killing me :-)

Hoping you are not red/gr= een colourblind.

 <= /p>

Look in line for [DD].

 

[Snipped to only the poin= ts for discussion]

 <= /p> 

* Sec 5.  How Do I Sel=
ect Between PCEs?
Along with capability, you =
can also mention the PCE's preference for each
computation scope as carrie=
d in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv.
 

You are going to have to remind =
me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE subtlv defined?

I suppose I was considering that=
 a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its own domain, but I can add a not=
e.


[DD] Its in RFC5088, 5=
089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE in its own domain which match=
es with the path computation scope (inter-area, inter-AS, inter-layer) alon=
g with the capability.


 


Ah, ah, ah! I was busy think=
ing this was a PCEP sub-tlv. 


 


OLD:

   When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC =
will need


   to select which PCE to use.  It may make this decisio=
n on any


   arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-r=
obin), but


   it may also be the case that different PCEs have different=



   capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select th=
e PCE most


   likely to be able to satisfy any one request.  The fi=
rst requirement,


     =
of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. =



NEW:


   When more than one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need


   to select which PCE to use.  It may make this decisio=
n on any


   arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-r=
obin), but


   it may also be the case that different PCEs have different=



   capabilities and path computation scope, in which case the PCC will 


   want to select the PCE most likely to be able to sati=
sfy any one request.


     =
The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for 


    &=
nbsp;the relevant domain. 


 


Yeah, OK for that. It duplic=
ates the final sentence I added to this paragraph, but it does no harm.


 

* Sec 20.  Comparison =
of Stateless and Stateful PCE


Can you have a re look at t=
his wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is now a WG draft. <=
/span>


 

Mutter!


Which document is right?<=
span lang=3D"EN-GB" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri&quo=
t;,"sans-serif";color:#1F497D">


What specific issue are you rais=
ing?

[DD] http://tools.i=
etf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 says 


            =
;            &n=
bsp;     | Stateless |  Stateful |=



      ------------------------+-----------=
+-----------+


      Passive     &nb=
sp;           | &nbs=
p;   1     |     2 &=
nbsp;   |


      Active delegated LSPs   | =
;    3     |     4&n=
bsp;    |


      Active suggest new LSPs |   &n=
bsp; 5     |     6  =
   |


    &=
nbsp;   Active instantiate LSPs |     7 =
    |     7     |


 <=
/pre>

    &=
nbsp; 7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described.<=
/o:p>


 

Where does draft-ietf-pce=
-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my reading this was 7, and thus I sugges=
ted it should not be out of scope. 


If you agree, ignore below t=
ext… 


 

Otherwise we have some confu=
sion over the terms…


IMO ‘Suggest new LS=
P’ was same as PCE sends an update message triggering setup of a new =
LSP in MBB fashion. 


‘Instantiate LSP=
217; was PCE send an LSP initiate message to instantiate an LSP. (7)


Maybe you can clarify what i=
s your understanding of these terms… 


 

OK, the difference I am tryi=
ng to arrive at is whether the Active PCE can *require* the establishment o=
f an LSP, or whether it is *suggesting* it.


 

The difference is (IMHO) bet=
ween an NMS or CLI that dictates what the LSR does, and an Active PCE that =
requests the LSR to act.


More precisely, absent acces=
s controls, an LSR obeys the NMS, but an LSR can implement policy to filter=
 or modify requests from a PCE.


 

I realise that this view mig=
ht not be popular with implementers of Active PCEs, but I think that they a=
re failing to distinguish between the blob of code they are writing and nam=
ing "Company Foo's most Excellent Active PCE", and the architectu=
ral components.  This, at least, is part of what I am trying to convey=
 in Section 19 of this document and in the ABNO document.=



 

The bottom line, I think, is=
 that a PCE is not a provisioning tool, it is a path computation element. T=
he fact that PCEP is used as a provisioning protocol does not make the thin=
g that does the provisioning into a PCE.


 

Of course, I don't want to g=
o against consensus with this, but I do think it is an important architectu=
ral principle. Thus, I have been looking for words that suit both viewpoint=
s...


 

For an Active PCE to "s=
uggest new LSPs" or to "recommend new LSPs" as described in =
Sections 19 and 20 allows, IMHO, an LSR to have a policy that says "al=
ways do what is recommended" and so achieving PCE-initiated LSPs. Yet,=
 these words also allow a policy of "look both ways before crossing th=
e road" which fits more closely with my world-view. =



 

From my perspective "se=
nding an update message to trigger setup of a new LSP in MBB fashion" =
is no different from setting up any other LSP. First there was no LSP, then=
 there is one. So I think the distinction you are drawing doesn't work.


 

I hope that explains my moti=
vation, and I believe the words in the draft fit this explanation.


 

Cheers,

Adrian
--_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62szxeml556mbschi_-- From nobody Tue Mar 18 03:50:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CB81A06D6 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxluSmpK0Cto for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D291A06D5 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2IAnfC2020352; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:49:41 GMT Received: from 950129200 (108.26.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.26.108]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2IAnXvi020212 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:49:40 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" , References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <277201cf41d5$b934d2c0$2b9e7840$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:49:33 -0000 Message-ID: <013201cf4297$c4021740$4c0645c0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQNBTAKt13E+qb+7zl793QfaTCZ0wQHZAZ2OAhNqv0oB1xANVQJi0xgoAXB+QJACn46nhZeg2uGg Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20572.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--39.250-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--39.250-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkAQoD+Lr/yRKZRrnSy7UTtbGSqdEmeD/nXloWjcIeMYgEg9 oIEl5+XgUr9+KuqT2ToMMV3HqxQ6enbjKtRz1M+cxZQoGMRGhhOJ7IEVMTX5x3+0T1ghSvBi5JG tNdr1AhL9pAoscc8kOSnXcFDijwlhfh0BByKSGpOq/ikd9cQmyoEcpMn6x9cZAsunKi0r0b0s8m 1alsmNjYAhuGjJHHyx92ILRMoZN4jfnSLAINKHpi1ei6Dp41mZrLALtod6A6ZI51QyNYVlzskJK MRi4d1cmGIurjuZF5LRyt/Bmr4z8y9FtW7XfHue4nbwqqmOd2mM45JzjPlCaGTld3DbJ1CGyw44 3rwzxPFBFoT14xygSYOzbiG14BOfBR2X5okNNieVjmqvt/p8cp7wR6/2hZzOQ7roRC02qf4lncP TMo+HsSnu9YXs3Agu8snJNwZXAFw0iX4rUaqaeFZ0E+oA5pdVRtu4vtjjtzT52q+ftoTEiLkLNC KogPuNm2R53H/e4SvN3Gz877gbKd15COo1l2N0KWuiyZLRI4A2fwiaBZgD/H3hz57t9YhwgLvKb EFwC52GH7MO6imm4qr/6KM/dG1WDD8u5q9hbJhCnGIuUMP0VQiN6fibvJqqbcPp/oilssifQtB4 GOTvtmL8hHLA3GV3cP5AwFk+RM4cbXO7OGqBZ5rOCW59mY6Hbv16+gil4je7+NPPxj+R6syUvqm DPNmK01CjbbHk5lB9BWsmcYRmLbttu4oRBU6hdXz3l78F3YmBjLzL4do+VhKAWnKBwBf/Bk+/r+ IFkv7zPO4XyfvAQ/1tkEcsYqG43QUmX3MxclSeAiCmPx4NwGNn8XPiALIbYO2CFMU1sNcqtq5d3 cxkNQP90fJP9eHt Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/6usN6Jpeb1PM1s1DpYXSsQyCyB8 Subject: Re: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:50:28 -0000 Dhruv, How right you are: a decision is needed and the WG should discuss it. I suspect it will not help us to quote one draft or another, because we = are trying to converge on consensus from a variety of work-in-progress = documents. *The* crunch from my perspective is whether a PCE is a provisioning = source or not. Please note that this is a very different question from whether = PCEP can be used as a provisioning protocol. RFC 4655 has: PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. The debate, I suppose, is about whether we stick with that definition, = or broaden it. I would personally prefer to draw boxes around functional components. Thus, from my point of view, what is being discussed is a = variant of Figure 5 from RFC 4655. In that variant, the PCE is a component of the = NMS, and the NMS uses PCEP as the service request protocol. This vision keeps the = concept of a PCE as a simple computation engine, and allows all of the rest of = the function as before. One might draw the following ASCII Art... ----------------------------------- | ------ ----- | | NMS |LSP-DB| | TED |<-+-----------> | / ------ ----- | TED synchronization | -------------/ | | | mechanism (for example, | | LSP | | | | routing protocol) | | Coordinator | v v | | | | -------------- | | | |-| PCE | | | ------------- -------------- | | | | | | --------------------------- | | | PCEP Protocol Engine | | | --------------------------- | | | A | | | | | -------+-----+--------------------- Provisioning | |Computation Request | |Request/Response V V ---------- Signaling ---------- | Head-End | Protocol | Adjacent | | Node |<------------->| Node | ---------- ---------- Now, draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp currently says... A PCC or PCE indicates its ability to support PCE provisioned dynamic LSPs And I think this is a little confused. I think it is referring to the = use of PCEP for provisioning LSPs. Maybe I am splitting hairs, or maybe I am trying to ensure that new work = remains consistent with the architecture without preventing any of the new work. In my opinion the use of terms in the new work has conflated what we = implement and sell as a PCE (wonderful, glowing marketing term), and what the = functional components are. This debate as one of the primary reasons why I started draft-ietf-pce-questions, so I would clearly like to see it resolved. Thanks, Adrian From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 18 March 2014 06:24 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) WG,=20 Regarding PCE-Initiated LSP=85=20 (1) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-04#section-20 use the term =93suggest=94 or =93recommend=94 LSP and considers =93LSP = Instantiation=94 as out of scope.=20 (2) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03 = (WG -00 yet to be posted) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-ls= p-01 all use the term =93LSP instantiation=94 for PCE-Initiated LSP.=20 We need to come to some consensus regarding this and use the same = terminology across WG documents. =A0 Thoughts? Dhruv --------------------------------------------------------------- Dhruv Dhody=20 System Architect,=20 Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Banagalore This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from = HUAWEI, which=20 is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. = Any use of the=20 information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, = total or partial=20 disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the = intended=20 recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please = notify the sender by=20 phone or email immediately and delete it! From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]=20 Sent: 17 March 2014 17:11 To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: pce@ietf.org; 'Dhruv Dhody' Subject: RE: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Sorry for the HTML, but I am hoping this thread can be closed soon=85 You're killing me :-) Hoping you are not red/green colourblind. Look in line for [DD].=20 [Snipped to only the points for discussion] * Sec 5.=A0 How Do I Select Between PCEs? Along with capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for = each computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv. You are going to have to remind me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE = subtlv defined? I suppose I was considering that a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in = its own domain, but I can add a note. [DD] Its in RFC5088, 5089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE in = its own domain which matches with the path computation scope (inter-area, = inter-AS, inter-layer) along with the capability. Ah, ah, ah! I was busy thinking this was a PCEP sub-tlv.=20 OLD: =A0=A0 When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will = need =A0=A0 to select which PCE to use.=A0 It may make this decision on any =A0=A0 arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), = but =A0=A0 it may also be the case that different PCEs have different =A0=A0 capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE = most =A0=A0 likely to be able to satisfy any one request.=A0 The first = requirement, =A0=A0 =A0=A0of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the = relevant domain.=20 NEW: =A0=A0 When more than one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will = need =A0=A0 to select which PCE to use.=A0 It may make this decision on any =A0=A0 arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), = but =A0=A0 it may also be the case that different PCEs have different =A0=A0 capabilities and path computation scope, in which case the PCC = will=20 =A0=A0=A0want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any = one request. =A0=A0=A0=A0The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can = compute paths for=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0the relevant domain.=20 Yeah, OK for that. It duplicates the final sentence I added to this = paragraph, but it does no harm. * Sec 20.=A0 Comparison of Stateless and Stateful PCE Can you have a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 = is now a WG draft.=20 Mutter! Which document is right? What specific issue are you raising? [DD] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 = says=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0| Stateless |=A0 Stateful | =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ------------------------+-----------+-----------+ =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Passive=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |=A0=A0=A0=A0 1=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 2=A0=A0=A0=A0 | =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Active delegated LSPs=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 3=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |=A0=A0=A0=A0 4=A0=A0=A0=A0 | =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Active suggest new LSPs | =A0=A0=A0=A05=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |=A0=A0=A0=A0 6=A0=A0=A0=A0 | =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0Active instantiate LSPs |=A0=A0=A0=A0 = 7=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 7=A0=A0=A0=A0 | =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently = described. Where does draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my reading this = was 7, and thus I suggested it should not be out of scope.=20 If you agree, ignore below text=85=20 Otherwise we have some confusion over the terms=85 IMO =91Suggest new LSP=92 was same as PCE sends an update message = triggering setup of a new LSP in MBB fashion.=20 =91Instantiate LSP=92 was PCE send an LSP initiate message to = instantiate an LSP. (7) Maybe you can clarify what is your understanding of these terms=85=20 OK, the difference I am trying to arrive at is whether the Active PCE = can *require* the establishment of an LSP, or whether it is *suggesting* it. The difference is (IMHO) between an NMS or CLI that dictates what the = LSR does, and an Active PCE that requests the LSR to act. More precisely, absent access controls, an LSR obeys the NMS, but an LSR = can implement policy to filter or modify requests from a PCE. I realise that this view might not be popular with implementers of = Active PCEs, but I think that they are failing to distinguish between the blob of = code they are writing and naming "Company Foo's most Excellent Active PCE", and = the architectural components.=A0 This, at least, is part of what I am trying = to convey in Section 19 of this document and in the ABNO document. The bottom line, I think, is that a PCE is not a provisioning tool, it = is a path computation element. The fact that PCEP is used as a provisioning = protocol does not make the thing that does the provisioning into a PCE. Of course, I don't want to go against consensus with this, but I do = think it is an important architectural principle. Thus, I have been looking for = words that suit both viewpoints... For an Active PCE to "suggest new LSPs" or to "recommend new LSPs" as = described in Sections 19 and 20 allows, IMHO, an LSR to have a policy that says = "always do what is recommended" and so achieving PCE-initiated LSPs. Yet, these = words also allow a policy of "look both ways before crossing the road" which fits = more closely with my world-view.=20 >From my perspective "sending an update message to trigger setup of a new = LSP in MBB fashion" is no different from setting up any other LSP. First there = was no LSP, then there is one. So I think the distinction you are drawing = doesn't work. I hope that explains my motivation, and I believe the words in the draft = fit this explanation. Cheers, Adrian From nobody Tue Mar 18 04:12:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1CB1A03C9 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:12:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Np0MU6ovies7 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com (mail-yk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857BA1A03CA for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 9so18593932ykp.1 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:11:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aXh4gF8LVJJJTJQjjMHsFCUHE0k4lanXJkJ4OMSS4h0=; b=v9jSGaJw2aG+MwdbtLTr9n0DD8RddsmH2oOkMW1z3Us2Eb8Tnyeebwfl7vIVcl+kn1 FS26/kUGYg87LxIJAuB+2kND1UHGS3lzJLCe3AVwROkBSFGLabNH4/8j/h8k+O1tvtv3 qg/r+NEMpE23Wm9Rza4Aoyr52hFFjFLHqdj2PZZmzS2tVPkQ52vl+jZRNO2FHtKO+JuR QA/jIoQAopRSG1z27zCkAd3kHCVv0Lg9o+4imggY7E/uLDYKPrjHXEDn3MTGrd26iuns rxeCHS/kipvJFSeL+fD1JGleD0z8uraJszZBiUv+H1CvGoSfEv31MljciyPFHaXhhYyl fdaA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.99.38 with SMTP id w26mr41503188yhf.18.1395141111225; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.202.7 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 04:11:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <013201cf4297$c4021740$4c0645c0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <277201cf41d5$b934d2c0$2b9e7840$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <013201cf4297$c4021740$4c0645c0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:11:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/w4uW_7B8ZRmw78Z8yuY4xUTDN1E Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:12:08 -0000 On 3/18/14, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Dhruv, > How right you are: a decision is needed and the WG should discuss it. Agree, more discussions always good for WG. > > I suspect it will not help us to quote one draft or another, because we are > trying to converge on consensus from a variety of work-in-progress > documents. I think relating discussions and consensus to consistent documents is important for best progress. Any confusion between what we think/mean and what we document SHOULD be solved in our WG documents within thoes documents. > RFC 4655 has: > PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, or > network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route > based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. > > The debate, I suppose, is about whether we stick with that definition, or > broaden it. We can stick to definition only if it is not confusing. > I would personally prefer to draw boxes around functional > components. That needs to be added maybe in the questioning drafts or unanswered issues. > Maybe I am splitting hairs, or maybe I am trying to ensure that new work > remains > consistent with the architecture without preventing any of the new work. > If architecture needs adjusting it is easier to adjust, and make consistent with new documents. So I think that Dhruv's suggestion may be closer to that. > In my opinion the use of terms in the new work has conflated what we > implement > and sell as a PCE (wonderful, glowing marketing term), and what the > functional > components are. This debate as one of the primary reasons why I started > draft-ietf-pce-questions, so I would clearly like to see it resolved. Is it ok to leave the marketing terms as it is, but we only adjust the terms' use and definitions, as Dhruv's suggested. However, documents should be without confusing/mismatch when describing implemented terms/technologies. Regards, AB From nobody Tue Mar 18 12:04:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4F71A06E8; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pC3UjKp8IN1u; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80121A063E; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.1.0p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140318190431.32366.28797.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:04:31 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/FUhWeQCaaEbBJz0M6EnhiwP3olo Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:04:33 -0000 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 Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for remote-initiated GMPLS LSP Setup Authors : Zafar Ali Siva Sivabalan Clarence Filsfils Robert Varga Victor Lopez Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Xian Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2014-03-18 Abstract: Draft [I-D. draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] specifies procedures that can be used for creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs in the active stateful PCE model. However, this specification focuses on MPLS networks, and does not cover remote instantiation of paths in GMPLS-controlled networks. This document complements [I-D. draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by addressing the requirements for remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Mar 18 12:05:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029381A063E; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:05:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j2YZqzxEc_uX; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786931A0455; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:05:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.1.0p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140318190500.32334.86540.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:05:00 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/1c2ICCWaOQzA1JD259vy0JE2pws Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:05:02 -0000 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 Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for remote-initiated GMPLS LSP Setup Authors : Zafar Ali Siva Sivabalan Clarence Filsfils Robert Varga Victor Lopez Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Xian Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2014-03-18 Abstract: Draft [I-D. draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] specifies procedures that can be used for creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs in the active stateful PCE model. However, this specification focuses on MPLS networks, and does not cover remote instantiation of paths in GMPLS-controlled networks. This document complements [I-D. draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by addressing the requirements for remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Mar 18 12:10:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DEB1A049A for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fHAjnJx-oLt9 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69391A0494 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:10:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1114; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395169818; x=1396379418; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=dX8RKACTgQQGNK/ptVYbS6x7z4sUHnKP+tOcxPdexFw=; b=KRTy7Kxvwpm5DS9jcwTOUr4pJhBTipu/OEOrPtMr3IaNa8Kdh+LKEdrr /2C/9wFqtEbtqKo32UgaJNmop2zlT+iopv9PqhbaS0vB6PL965MKb78+o DGyngPTb/717A95sINAwesVddMMecTH4bvmZAiQSDeWgoyiKnd6V1D3ZN 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAFOZKFOtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V7pnhzyBLRZ0giUBAQEEAQEBaxcGAQgRAwECVgsdCAIEARKHeQ3QJRMEjgARAVcGhDIEmEaSMIFvgT6Bcjk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,679,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="28418437" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2014 19:10:18 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2IJAIqx026316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:10:18 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.171]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:10:18 -0500 From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document Thread-Index: AQHPPLZNzvRqArUKVESIJUxFej8rHZrnU9YA Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:10:17 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1BCED310-5C72-4907-B10B-8410E726A6FB@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.82.214.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <0332FEC8ACC6004688C1AEF9E87B4808@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uqDBBQKOvkfTcVhX962nOEUYW78 Subject: Re: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:10:30 -0000 Hi JP, Loa and WG:=20 We have published=20 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp/ , accordingly and soliciting WG comments and feedback. @Loa, please correct us... We believe we have addressed your comment via email. No change to document is needed for that. Thanks Regards =8A Zafar -----Original Message----- From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" Date: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:13 PM To: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] New PCE WG Document: draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document >Dear WG, > >We had a clear consensus to adopt >draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document as a >PCE WG document. >Authors, please re-submit as >draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00.txt with no change other >than document name, title and dates. >Could you please address in revision the comment made by Loa ? > >Thanks. > >JP and Julien. >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Wed Mar 19 00:13:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CD11A0058 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:13:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X37XgfXnzLpg for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from villa.puc.rediris.es (villa.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca00::23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7044C1A0039 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by villa.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WQAgM-0003Y3-0O; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:12:58 +0100 Received: from [84.88.61.50] (unknown [84.88.61.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDC401FDFD; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:12:54 +0100 (CET) X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Message-ID: <53294376.7070206@cttc.es> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:12:54 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'Adrian Farrel' (adrian@olddog.co.uk)" , "pce >> \"pce@ietf.org\"" References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <277201cf41d5$b934d2c0$2b9e7840$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <013201cf4297$c4021740$4c0645c0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <013201cf4297$c4021740$4c0645c0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070201070008060605030704" X-Spamina-Bogosity: Ham Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/xZZb-qb6KB-gOUFlsj_SjpOdfJI Subject: Re: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:13:11 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070201070008060605030704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian, all A somehow orthogonal comment/question unrelated to whether a PCE should be kept a simple element for path computation (as in abno) or its scope augmented with NMS-like capabilities. I am wondering about the role of your "PCEP Protocol Engine" box, as simply opposed to have two parallel vertical lines that use PCEP. Maybe a away of narrowing my question would be as follows: "Can it be that the whole NMS box in your drawing is a single IP host?" If the answer is, as I would expect "usually not", since the LSP coordinator and PCE are different functional entities that can be located in different IP hosts, then I guess my subsequent comment would be that "the PCEP protocol engine box" is not really needed, the same way we don't add "X protocol engine" to all the interfaces / lines. However, in my humble opinion, it does make sense if, for example, the NMS is just an IP host, and to highlight the role of PCE as a functional component within that box. In this case, I am wondering about the issue with RFC5440 disallowing parallel PCEP sessions [1] (this is something that I find unfortunate in RFC5440, and that was left out of the errata when we changed the mandatory client port) In other words, If the head end node has a single, unique, persistent PCEP/TCP connection to the "NMS" box, represented by a given IP address, and which is used for path computation requests and responses, can this persistent PCEP session be *also* used to receive provisioning requests? (i.e. multiplexed in a single PCEP instance). By RFC5440 the answer seems to be "yes". Then your question reduces to "shall the working group call PCE to the NMS box, of just to the inner box", but noting that the only thing that is added to a PCE is the "LSP coordinator function" Alternatively, I guess that the head end node would need to listen for incoming TCP/PCEP connections as provisioning interface or establish a PCEP connection with the "LSP coordinator" (thus assuming configuring the head end node with both addresses), in addition to acting as PCC client. (I am postponing the issue of having to replicate PCRpts to both the initiating LSP coordinator as well as PCE, and keeping both in sync for a later discussion :o) sorry for the long, I guess somehow confusing mail. R. ----------------------------------- | ------ ----- | | NMS|LSP-DB| | TED |<-+-----------> | / ------ ----- | TED synchronization | -------------/ | | | mechanism (for example, | | LSP | | | | routing protocol) | | Coordinator | v v | | | | -------------- | | | |-| PCE | | | ------------- -------------- | | | | | | --------------------------- | | | PCEP Protocol Engine | | | --------------------------- | | | A | | | | | -------+-----+--------------------- Provisioning | |Computation Request | |Request/Response V V ---------- Signaling ---------- | Head-End | Protocol | Adjacent | | Node |<------------->| Node | ---------- ---------- [1] RFC5440 Only one PCEP session can exist between a pair of PCEP peers at any one time. Only one TCP connection on the PCEP port can exist between a pair of PCEP peers at any one time. --------------070201070008060605030704 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Adrian, all

A somehow orthogonal comment/question unrelated to whether a PCE should be kept a simple element for path computation (as in abno) or its scope augmented with NMS-like capabilities. I am wondering about the role of your "PCEP Protocol Engine" box, as simply opposed to have two parallel vertical lines that use PCEP.  Maybe a away of narrowing my question would be as follows:

"Can it be that the whole NMS box in your drawing is a single IP host?"

If the answer is, as I would expect "usually not", since the LSP coordinator and PCE are different functional entities that can be located in different IP hosts, then I guess my subsequent comment would be that "the PCEP protocol engine box" is not really needed, the same way we don't add "X protocol engine" to all the interfaces / lines.

However, in my humble opinion, it does make sense if, for example, the NMS is just an IP host, and to highlight the role of PCE as a functional component within that box. In this case, I am wondering about the issue with RFC5440 disallowing parallel PCEP sessions [1] (this is something that I find unfortunate in RFC5440, and that was left out of the errata when we changed the mandatory client port)

In other words, If the head end node has a single, unique, persistent PCEP/TCP connection to the "NMS" box, represented by a given IP address, and which is used for path computation requests and responses, can this persistent PCEP session be *also* used to receive provisioning requests? (i.e. multiplexed in a single PCEP instance). By RFC5440 the answer seems to be "yes". Then your question reduces to "shall the working group call PCE to the NMS box, of just to the inner box", but noting that the only thing that is added to a PCE is the "LSP coordinator function"

Alternatively, I guess that the head end node would need to listen for incoming TCP/PCEP connections as provisioning interface or establish a PCEP connection with the "LSP coordinator" (thus assuming configuring the head end node with both addresses), in addition to acting as PCC client.

(I am postponing the issue of having to replicate PCRpts to both the initiating LSP coordinator as well as PCE, and keeping both in sync for a later discussion :o)

sorry for the long, I guess somehow  confusing mail.

R. 
         -----------------------------------
        |                  ------   -----   |
        | NMS             |LSP-DB| | TED |<-+----------->
        |                / ------   -----   |  TED synchronization
        |  -------------/    |        |     |  mechanism (for example,
        | | LSP         |    |        |     |  routing protocol)
        | | Coordinator |    v        v     |
        | |             |  --------------   |
        | |             |-|     PCE      |  |
        |  -------------   --------------   |
        |         |               |         |
        |    ---------------------------    |
        |   |    PCEP Protocol Engine   |   |
        |    ---------------------------    |
        |       |     A                     |
        |       |     |                     |
         -------+-----+---------------------
   Provisioning |     |Computation
        Request |     |Request/Response
                V     V
               ----------    Signaling    ----------
              | Head-End |   Protocol    | Adjacent |
              |  Node    |<------------->|   Node   |
               ----------                 ----------
[1] RFC5440 Only one PCEP session can exist between a pair of PCEP peers at any
   one time.  Only one TCP connection on the PCEP port can exist between
   a pair of PCEP peers at any one time.
--------------070201070008060605030704-- From nobody Wed Mar 19 01:16:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3589D1A02CF for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.297 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZaTskse1Rqp for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2F41A0344 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCF30209; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:16:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:15:35 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.42) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:15:46 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.22]) by SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.42]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:15:36 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: Ramon Casellas Thread-Topic: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) Thread-Index: AQHPQpf3oPQt7skjxkSLPeFjgSBK2Zrnef4AgACNaiA= Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:15:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140206112220.911.91885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <013e01cf232e$d24a0d90$76de28b0$@olddog.co.uk> <268e01cf4162$c4d68fb0$4e83af10$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548BAF@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <277201cf41d5$b934d2c0$2b9e7840$@olddog.co.uk> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B75548F62@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <013201cf4297$c4021740$4c0645c0$@olddog.co.uk> <53294376.7070206@cttc.es> In-Reply-To: <53294376.7070206@cttc.es> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B30213B23SZXEMA512MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/-2M2Dn_wJwrRtqHr-Ry24B0lU48 Cc: "pce >> \"pce@ietf.org\"" Subject: Re: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:16:46 -0000 --_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B30213B23SZXEMA512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGksIFJhbW9uLA0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIHlvdSByYWlzZSBhIHZlcnkgZ29vZCBwb2ludC4gIElNSE8s IHRoZSB0d28gbGluZXMgZHJhd24gKHVzaW5nIHRoZSBmaWd1cmUgUmFtb24gcHJvdmlkZWQgYmVs b3cpIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIGJveCBhYm92ZSAobmFtZWQgYXMgTk1TKSBhbmQgTkVzIHdpbGwgbm90 IGNvLWV4aXN0IGFsdGhvdWdoIGl0IHNlcnZlcyB0aGUgcHVycG9zZSBvZiBpbmNsdWRpbmcgYWxs IG1vZGVzIGN1cnJlbnRseSB1bmRlciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLg0KDQoNCjEpICAgICAgRm9yIHByb3Zp c2lvbmluZywgYXMgZGV0YWlsZWQgaW4gaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1wY2UtcGNlLWluaXRpYXRlZC1sc3AtMDAsIGl0IGRvZXMgbm90IGV4cGVjdCBhbnkgY29t cHV0YXRpb24gcmVxdWVzdC9yZXBseSBtZXNzYWdlIGV4Y2hhbmdlIChpZiBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQg Y29ycmVjdGx5KSBzaW5jZSBMU1BzIGFyZSBhc3N1bWVkIHRvIGJlIGRlbGVnYXRlZCBhbGwgdGhl IHRpbWUuIFNvLCBhbHRob3VnaCBJIGRvIGV4cGVjdCBvdGhlciBQQ0VQIG1lc3NhZ2VzIG90aGVy IHRoYW4gUENJbml0aWF0ZSBzZW50IHRocm91Z2gsIGJ1dCBkZWZpbml0ZWx5IG5vdCByZXF1ZXN0 IGFuZCByZXBseSBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIGV4Y2hhbmdlZC4NCg0KMikgICAgICBGb3IgY29tcHV0 YXRpb24gcmVxdWVzdC9yZXBseSwgYXNzdW1lIHdoYXQgd2UgbWVhbnQgaGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgYmFz aWMgc3RhdGVsZXNzIChvciBtYXhpbXVtIHRoZSBhY3RpdmUgc3RhdGVmdWwgUENFKSBmdW5jdGlv biwgdGhlbiB0aGUgbGVmdCBsaW5lIGlzIGRlZmluaXRlbHkgbm90IG5lZWRlZC4NCg0KQSBjb3Vw bGUgb2YgbW9yZSBwb2ludHMgSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIHJhaXNlIGZvciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uOg0K Rmlyc3Q6IFBDRVAgaXMgdXNlZCBiZXR3ZWVuIGEgUENFIGFuZCBhIFBDQywgYnV0IGZyb20gZmln dXJlIGJlbG93IGl0IHNlZW1zIFBDRVAgY2FuIGFsc28gYmUgdXNlZCBiZXR3ZWVuIGEgTFNQIGNv b3JkaW5hdG9yIGFuZCBhIE5FLCBvciBzYXkgYSBOTVMgYW5kIGEgTkUuDQpTZWNvbmQ6IEN1cnJl bnRseSBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDUuNSBvZiBSRkM0NjU1LCBpdCBkaXNjdXNzIGhvdyBOTVMgY2FuIHRh a2UgYWR2YW50YWdlIG9mIGEgUENFLCBidXQgYWdhaW4gdGhlcmUgTk1TIGFuZCBQQ0UgYXJlIGRp ZmZlcmVudCBib3hlcyBhbmQgdGhlIE5NUyBpcyBhY3RpbmcgYXMgYSBQQ0MgYW5kIHByZXN1bWFi bHkgdXNpbmcgaXRzIG93biBwcm90b2NvbCAoYnV0IG5vdCBQQ0VQKSBmb3Igc2VydmljZSByZXF1 ZXN0Lg0KDQpTbywgaXQgc2VlbXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGVpdGhlciBicm9hZGVuIFBDRSBm dW5jdGlvbiBvciBicm9hZGVuIHRoZSBlbnRpdHkgY2F0YWxvZ3VlIHVzaW5nIFBDRVAsIGlzbqGv dCBpdD8NCg0KKFRvIGFuc3dlciBEaHJ1dqGvcyBxdWVzdGlvbiBzZW50IHRvIHRoZSBsaXN0KSBQ ZXJzb25hbGx5LCBJIGRvIG5vdCBoYXZlIGFuIGlzc3VlIHNheWluZyBwaHJhc2VzIHN1Y2ggYXMg obBQQ0UtaW5pdGlhdGVkIExTUKGxIHNpbmNlIHdlIGFyZSBleHRlbmRpbmcgdGhlIFBDRVAgdG8g ZG8gcHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nIGFuZCB0aGUgYWN0aW5nIGVudGl0eSBoYXMgdG8gYmUgUENFIGluIGN1 cnJlbnQgc3RkIGRlZmluaXRpb24sIHVubGVzcyBJIGFtIG1pc3Rha2VuLiBJZiBwcmVzZXJ2aW5n IGN1cnJlbnQgZnVuY3Rpb24gb2YgUENFIChha2EsIHBhdGggY29tcHV0YXRpb24pIGlzIHByZWZl cnJlZCwgd2hhdCB3ZSBjYW4gZW1waGFzaXplIGlzIHRoZSBQQ0UgaXRzZWxmIGlzIG5vdCBhY3Rp bmcgYXMgYSBwcm92aXNpb25pbmcgZW50aXR5IGJ1dCByYXRoZXIgaXQgYWN0cyBhcyBhIHByb3h5 IGZvciB0aGUgZW50aXR5IChzYXkgYSBuZXR3b3JrIGNvbnRyb2xsZXIpIHRvIHNlbmQgdGhlIHBy b3Zpc2lvbmluZyByZXF1ZXN0LiBTbywgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiBjb250cm9sbGVyLT5QQ0UtPmNvbnRy b2xsZXItPiBORSBtZXNzYWdlIGZsb3csIGl0IGlzIHNpbXBsaWZpZWQgYXMgY29udHJvbGxlci0+ UENFLT5ORXMgcGF0aC4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNClhpYW4NCg0KRnJvbTogUGNlIFttYWlsdG86cGNl LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBSYW1vbiBDYXNlbGxhcw0KU2VudDogMjAx NMTqM9TCMTnI1SAxNToxMw0KVG86ICdBZHJpYW4gRmFycmVsJyAoYWRyaWFuQG9sZGRvZy5jby51 ayk7IHBjZSA+PiAicGNlQGlldGYub3JnIg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQY2VdIFRlcm1pbm9sb2d5 IGZvciBQQ0UtSW5pdGlhdGVkIExTUCAoV2FzIEktRCBBY3Rpb246IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXF1 ZXN0aW9ucy0wMi50eHQpDQoNCkFkcmlhbiwgYWxsDQoNCkEgc29tZWhvdyBvcnRob2dvbmFsIGNv bW1lbnQvcXVlc3Rpb24gdW5yZWxhdGVkIHRvIHdoZXRoZXIgYSBQQ0Ugc2hvdWxkIGJlIGtlcHQg YSBzaW1wbGUgZWxlbWVudCBmb3IgcGF0aCBjb21wdXRhdGlvbiAoYXMgaW4gYWJubykgb3IgaXRz IHNjb3BlIGF1Z21lbnRlZCB3aXRoIE5NUy1saWtlIGNhcGFiaWxpdGllcy4gSSBhbSB3b25kZXJp bmcgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHJvbGUgb2YgeW91ciAiUENFUCBQcm90b2NvbCBFbmdpbmUiIGJveCwgYXMg c2ltcGx5IG9wcG9zZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSB0d28gcGFyYWxsZWwgdmVydGljYWwgbGluZXMgdGhhdCB1 c2UgUENFUC4gIE1heWJlIGEgYXdheSBvZiBuYXJyb3dpbmcgbXkgcXVlc3Rpb24gd291bGQgYmUg YXMgZm9sbG93czoNCg0KIkNhbiBpdCBiZSB0aGF0IHRoZSB3aG9sZSBOTVMgYm94IGluIHlvdXIg ZHJhd2luZyBpcyBhIHNpbmdsZSBJUCBob3N0PyINCg0KSWYgdGhlIGFuc3dlciBpcywgYXMgSSB3 b3VsZCBleHBlY3QgInVzdWFsbHkgbm90Iiwgc2luY2UgdGhlIExTUCBjb29yZGluYXRvciBhbmQg UENFIGFyZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBlbnRpdGllcyB0aGF0IGNhbiBiZSBsb2NhdGVk IGluIGRpZmZlcmVudCBJUCBob3N0cywgdGhlbiBJIGd1ZXNzIG15IHN1YnNlcXVlbnQgY29tbWVu dCB3b3VsZCBiZSB0aGF0ICJ0aGUgUENFUCBwcm90b2NvbCBlbmdpbmUgYm94IiBpcyBub3QgcmVh bGx5IG5lZWRlZCwgdGhlIHNhbWUgd2F5IHdlIGRvbid0IGFkZCAiWCBwcm90b2NvbCBlbmdpbmUi IHRvIGFsbCB0aGUgaW50ZXJmYWNlcyAvIGxpbmVzLg0KDQpIb3dldmVyLCBpbiBteSBodW1ibGUg b3BpbmlvbiwgaXQgZG9lcyBtYWtlIHNlbnNlIGlmLCBmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgdGhlIE5NUyBpcyBq dXN0IGFuIElQIGhvc3QsIGFuZCB0byBoaWdobGlnaHQgdGhlIHJvbGUgb2YgUENFIGFzIGEgZnVu Y3Rpb25hbCBjb21wb25lbnQgd2l0aGluIHRoYXQgYm94LiBJbiB0aGlzIGNhc2UsIEkgYW0gd29u ZGVyaW5nIGFib3V0IHRoZSBpc3N1ZSB3aXRoIFJGQzU0NDAgZGlzYWxsb3dpbmcgcGFyYWxsZWwg UENFUCBzZXNzaW9ucyBbMV0gKHRoaXMgaXMgc29tZXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgSSBmaW5kIHVuZm9ydHVu YXRlIGluIFJGQzU0NDAsIGFuZCB0aGF0IHdhcyBsZWZ0IG91dCBvZiB0aGUgZXJyYXRhIHdoZW4g d2UgY2hhbmdlZCB0aGUgbWFuZGF0b3J5IGNsaWVudCBwb3J0KQ0KDQpJbiBvdGhlciB3b3Jkcywg SWYgdGhlIGhlYWQgZW5kIG5vZGUgaGFzIGEgc2luZ2xlLCB1bmlxdWUsIHBlcnNpc3RlbnQgUENF UC9UQ1AgY29ubmVjdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgIk5NUyIgYm94LCByZXByZXNlbnRlZCBieSBhIGdpdmVu IElQIGFkZHJlc3MsIGFuZCB3aGljaCBpcyB1c2VkIGZvciBwYXRoIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9uIHJlcXVl c3RzIGFuZCByZXNwb25zZXMsIGNhbiB0aGlzIHBlcnNpc3RlbnQgUENFUCBzZXNzaW9uIGJlICph bHNvKiB1c2VkIHRvIHJlY2VpdmUgcHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nIHJlcXVlc3RzPyAoaS5lLiBtdWx0aXBs ZXhlZCBpbiBhIHNpbmdsZSBQQ0VQIGluc3RhbmNlKS4gQnkgUkZDNTQ0MCB0aGUgYW5zd2VyIHNl ZW1zIHRvIGJlICJ5ZXMiLiBUaGVuIHlvdXIgcXVlc3Rpb24gcmVkdWNlcyB0byAic2hhbGwgdGhl IHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgY2FsbCBQQ0UgdG8gdGhlIE5NUyBib3gsIG9mIGp1c3QgdG8gdGhlIGlu bmVyIGJveCIsIGJ1dCBub3RpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGUgb25seSB0aGluZyB0aGF0IGlzIGFkZGVkIHRv IGEgUENFIGlzIHRoZSAiTFNQIGNvb3JkaW5hdG9yIGZ1bmN0aW9uIg0KDQpBbHRlcm5hdGl2ZWx5 LCBJIGd1ZXNzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGhlYWQgZW5kIG5vZGUgd291bGQgbmVlZCB0byBsaXN0ZW4gZm9y IGluY29taW5nIFRDUC9QQ0VQIGNvbm5lY3Rpb25zIGFzIHByb3Zpc2lvbmluZyBpbnRlcmZhY2Ug b3IgZXN0YWJsaXNoIGEgUENFUCBjb25uZWN0aW9uIHdpdGggdGhlICJMU1AgY29vcmRpbmF0b3Ii ICh0aHVzIGFzc3VtaW5nIGNvbmZpZ3VyaW5nIHRoZSBoZWFkIGVuZCBub2RlIHdpdGggYm90aCBh ZGRyZXNzZXMpLCBpbiBhZGRpdGlvbiB0byBhY3RpbmcgYXMgUENDIGNsaWVudC4NCg0KKEkgYW0g cG9zdHBvbmluZyB0aGUgaXNzdWUgb2YgaGF2aW5nIHRvIHJlcGxpY2F0ZSBQQ1JwdHMgdG8gYm90 aCB0aGUgaW5pdGlhdGluZyBMU1AgY29vcmRpbmF0b3IgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBQQ0UsIGFuZCBrZWVw aW5nIGJvdGggaW4gc3luYyBmb3IgYSBsYXRlciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIDpvKQ0KDQpzb3JyeSBmb3Ig dGhlIGxvbmcsIEkgZ3Vlc3Mgc29tZWhvdyAgY29uZnVzaW5nIG1haWwuDQoNClIuDQoNCiAgICAg ICAgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoNCiAgICAgICAgfCAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIC0tLS0tLSAgIC0tLS0tICAgfA0KDQogICAgICAgIHwgTk1TICAgICAgICAg ICAgIHxMU1AtREJ8IHwgVEVEIHw8LSstLS0tLS0tLS0tLT4NCg0KICAgICAgICB8ICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIC8gLS0tLS0tICAgLS0tLS0gICB8ICBURUQgc3luY2hyb25pemF0aW9uDQoNCiAgICAg ICAgfCAgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS8gICAgfCAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgfCAgbWVjaGFuaXNtIChmb3Ig ZXhhbXBsZSwNCg0KICAgICAgICB8IHwgTFNQICAgICAgICAgfCAgICB8ICAgICAgICB8ICAgICB8 ICByb3V0aW5nIHByb3RvY29sKQ0KDQogICAgICAgIHwgfCBDb29yZGluYXRvciB8ICAgIHYgICAg ICAgIHYgICAgIHwNCg0KICAgICAgICB8IHwgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0g ICB8DQoNCiAgICAgICAgfCB8ICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwtfCAgICAgUENFICAgICAgfCAgfA0KDQog ICAgICAgIHwgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0gICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLSAgIHwNCg0KICAgICAgICB8 ICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgICAgICAgICB8DQoNCiAgICAgICAgfCAgICAtLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0gICAgfA0KDQogICAgICAgIHwgICB8ICAgIFBDRVAgUHJv dG9jb2wgRW5naW5lICAgfCAgIHwNCg0KICAgICAgICB8ICAgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLSAgICB8DQoNCiAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICB8ICAgICBBICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgfA0KDQogICAgICAgIHwgICAgICAgfCAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwNCg0K ICAgICAgICAgLS0tLS0tLSstLS0tLSstLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KICAgUHJvdmlz aW9uaW5nIHwgICAgIHxDb21wdXRhdGlvbg0KDQogICAgICAgIFJlcXVlc3QgfCAgICAgfFJlcXVl c3QvUmVzcG9uc2UNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFYgICAgIFYNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg LS0tLS0tLS0tLSAgICBTaWduYWxpbmcgICAgLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwg SGVhZC1FbmQgfCAgIFByb3RvY29sICAgIHwgQWRqYWNlbnQgfA0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwg IE5vZGUgICAgfDwtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPnwgICBOb2RlICAgfA0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAt LS0tLS0tLS0tICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoNClsxXSBSRkM1NDQwIE9ubHkg b25lIFBDRVAgc2Vzc2lvbiBjYW4gZXhpc3QgYmV0d2VlbiBhIHBhaXIgb2YgUENFUCBwZWVycyBh dCBhbnkNCg0KICAgb25lIHRpbWUuICBPbmx5IG9uZSBUQ1AgY29ubmVjdGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgUENF UCBwb3J0IGNhbiBleGlzdCBiZXR3ZWVuDQoNCiAgIGEgcGFpciBvZiBQQ0VQIHBlZXJzIGF0IGFu eSBvbmUgdGltZS4NCg== --_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B30213B23SZXEMA512MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Ramon,=

 = ;

I think you raise a very good point.  IMHO, the two = lines drawn (using the figure Ramon provided below) between the box above (named as NMS) and NEs will not co-exist although it serves the purp= ose of including all modes currently under discussion.

 

1)      Fo= r provisioning, as detailed in = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00, it does= not expect any computation request/reply message exchange (if I understand= correctly) since LSPs are assumed to be delegated all the time. So, although I do expect other PCEP messages= other than PCInitiate sent through, but definitely not request and reply c= ommunication exchanged.

2)      Fo= r computation request/reply, assume what we meant here is the basic statele= ss (or maximum the active stateful PCE) function, then the left line is definitely not needed.

 = ;

A couple o= f more points I would like to raise for discussion:

First: PCEP is used between a PCE and a PCC, but from fi= gure below it seems PCEP can also be used between a LSP coordinator and a NE, or say a NMS and a NE.  

Second: Currently in Section 5.5 of RFC4655, it discuss = how NMS can take advantage of a PCE, but again there NMS and PCE are different boxes and the NMS is acting as a PCC and presumably usin= g its own protocol (but not PCEP) for service request.

 

So, it seems that we need to either broaden PCE function= or broaden the entity catalogue using PCEP, isn=A1=AFt it?

 

(To answer Dhruv=A1=AFs question sent to the list) Perso= nally, I do not have an issue saying phrases such as =A1=B0PCE-initiated LSP=A1=B1 since we are extending the PCEP to do provisioning and the actin= g entity has to be PCE in current std definition, unless I am mistaken. If = preserving current function of PCE (aka, path computation) is preferred, wh= at we can emphasize is the PCE itself is not acting as a provisioning entity but rather it acts as a proxy for t= he entity (say a network controller) to send the provisioning request. So, = instead of controller->PCE->controller-> NE message flow, it is si= mplified as controller->PCE->NEs path.  

 = ;

Regards, Xian

 = ;

From:= Pce [mailto:pce-bou= nces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas
Sent: 2014=C4=EA3=D4=C219<= /span>=C8=D5 15:13
To: 'Adrian Farrel' (adrian@olddog.co.uk); pce >> "pce@ie= tf.org"
Subject: Re: [Pce] Terminology for PCE-Initiated LSP (Was I-D Action= : draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt)

 

Adrian, all

A somehow orthogonal comment/question unrelated to whether a PCE should be = kept a simple element for path computation (as in abno) or its scope augmen= ted with NMS-like capabilities. I am wondering about the role of your "= ;PCEP Protocol Engine" box, as simply opposed to have two parallel vertical lines that use PCEP.  Maybe a a= way of narrowing my question would be as follows:

"Can it be that the whole NMS box in your drawing is a single IP host?= "

If the answer is, as I would expect "usually not", since the LSP = coordinator and PCE are different functional entities that can be located i= n different IP hosts, then I guess my subsequent comment would be that &quo= t;the PCEP protocol engine box" is not really needed, the same way we don't add "X protocol engine" to all the interfa= ces / lines.

However, in my humble opinion, it does make sense if, for example, the NMS = is just an IP host, and to highlight the role of PCE as a functional compon= ent within that box. In this case, I am wondering about the issue with RFC5= 440 disallowing parallel PCEP sessions [1] (this is something that I find unfortunate in RFC5440, and that was le= ft out of the errata when we changed the mandatory client port)

In other words, If the head end node has a single, unique, persistent PCEP/= TCP connection to the "NMS" box, represented by a given IP addres= s, and which is used for path computation requests and responses, can this = persistent PCEP session be *also* used to receive provisioning requests? (i.e. multiplexed in a single PCEP instance= ). By RFC5440 the answer seems to be "yes". Then your question re= duces to "shall the working group call PCE to the NMS box, of just to = the inner box", but noting that the only thing that is added to a PCE is the "LSP coordinator function"

Alternatively, I guess that the head end node would need to listen for inco= ming TCP/PCEP connections as provisioning interface or establish a PCEP con= nection with the "LSP coordinator" (thus assuming configuring the= head end node with both addresses), in addition to acting as PCC client.

(I am postponing the issue of having to replicate PCRpts to both the initia= ting LSP coordinator as well as PCE, and keeping both in sync for a later d= iscussion :o)

sorry for the long, I guess somehow  confusing mail.

R. 

        &=
nbsp;-----------------------------------
        | =
;            &n=
bsp;    ------   -----   |
        | NMS&=
nbsp;            |LSP-DB| | TED |<-+----------->
        | =
;            &n=
bsp;  / ------   -----   |  TED synchronizati=
on
        | =
; -------------/    |      &nb=
sp; |     |  mechanism (for example,
        | | LS=
P         |    |&nbs=
p;       |     |  ro=
uting protocol)
        | | Co=
ordinator |    v        v=
     |
        | |&nb=
sp;            |&nbs=
p; --------------   |
        | |&nb=
sp;            |-|&n=
bsp;    PCE      |  |
        | =
; -------------   --------------   |<=
/pre>

        | =
;        |     =
          |   &=
nbsp;     |


        | =
;   ---------------------------    |


        | =
;  |    PCEP Protocol Engine   |   =
|


        | =
;   ---------------------------    |


        | =
;      |     A  &nbs=
p;            &=
nbsp;     |


        | =
;      |     |  &nbs=
p;            &=
nbsp;     |


         =
-------+-----+---------------------


   Provisioning |   &nbs=
p; |Computation


        Reques=
t |     |Request/Response


        &=
nbsp;       V     V<=
/o:p>


        &=
nbsp;      ----------    Signaling&=
nbsp;   ----------


        &=
nbsp;     | Head-End |   Protocol  =
  | Adjacent |


        &=
nbsp;     |  Node    |<---------=
---->|   Node   |


        &=
nbsp;      ----------     =
;            -------=
---


[1] RFC5440 Only one PCEP session can exist b=
etween a pair of PCEP peers at any
   one time.  Only one TCP connection on the PC=
EP port can exist between
   a pair of PCEP peers at any one time.<=
/span>
--_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B30213B23SZXEMA512MBSchi_-- From nobody Fri Mar 28 08:59:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3561A00FD for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:59:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tAjJOmropD_f for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5237A1A00FB for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1307; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1396022339; x=1397231939; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=hqxAS9w+QlP0P4BePzYgKsHydzhr+e4s00VKOq+fTuQ=; b=JaMA3T/1wYkoBd19MMi0XobCzFuxRhsLrsmRBD63Lqwqi7l7SL/yVQFO do+V8r3Ki8uULKpZfjPBuQJePnP6Fr0aFb+LqEk9acIBtySICfDsGy3p4 1RA6X2qUajSYlpiSoUXaCzQ97A/ww8H40PUWlOhOAO7xOg7Gwfib08RWo s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikFABabNVOtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgwY7V8JugRgWdIInAQQ6LhESASoUQiYBBA4FCAyHZQ3RZheMeoFPMYMrgRQEqwODMIIr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,751,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="313643785" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2014 15:58:59 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2SFwxIX017474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:58:59 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.4.162]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:58:59 -0500 From: "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: SDN/MPLS 2014 CFP Announcement Thread-Index: Ac9KnlEHio/jbpaGSGOf9ig3HWmvCw== Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:58:58 +0000 Message-ID: <0C8935EE66D53445A3D3982BD9BE5468214F0CA9@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.100.177.146] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/BKAwO35jLaPxxfpu9JpkFIQbGmk Subject: [Pce] SDN/MPLS 2014 CFP Announcement X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:59:02 -0000 Folks, The SDN/MPLS 2014 International Conference will be held on November 2 - 5, = in Washington, DC, at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel. This event is the 17= th annual conference organized by Isocore on Internet, MPLS, SDN, NFV, Clou= d, and Related Technologies.=20 The Technical Program Committee of SDN/MPLS 2014 is soliciting presentation= proposals for the conference. The committee seeks original and unpublished= work to continue the tradition initiated by this conference in 1998 of cov= ering cutting-edge topics. Presentations addressing new technologies and op= erational experience are solicited from network equipment vendors, network = and cloud service providers, the research community, government agencies, a= nd enterprise users. In 2014, the overarching themes of the conference will be on Virtualization= , SDN, Cloud Evolution, Datacenter/Cloud Interconnection, Mobility, Securit= y, and Service Resiliency.=20 The deadline for submission of presentation proposals is April 29, 2014.=20 Please submit your abstracts to cfp2014@isocore.com=20 For further information on the SDN/MPLS 2014 conference and additional deta= ils on how to submit an abstract, please visit the following URL: http://www.isocore.com/sdn-mpls/cfp.htm Regards, SA --